Price maintenance always leads to nullity?
Pursuant to competition law, it is not permitted to include so-called resale price maintenance in franchise agreements, which means that the franchisor may prescribe to the franchisee the selling prices at which the products and/or services must be purchased by consumers from the franchisee. Going against this rule is considered a cardinal and mortal sin in competition law. If such a clause is nevertheless included in a franchise agreement, does this mean that the franchise agreement in question is actually null and void? And what about if the franchisor has issued a margin guarantee to the franchisee and the franchisee cannot or may not deviate from the selling prices? In court proceedings, a franchisee recently argued that there was no possibility whatsoever to deviate from the sales price indicated by the franchisor. It has been ruled in court that it must be verified whether there is actually price maintenance in practice; this is very decisive. This can arise in practice, for example, when the franchisee is not even formally given the opportunity to deviate from these prices and therefore has no leeway whatsoever to charge a different price for a certain product. This resale price maintenance can also arise from the pre-pricing of articles, which the franchisee cannot or may not deviate from when selling. If this is actually the case, then real resale price maintenance only arises, with all the consequences that entails.
Franchisor and franchisee would of course be wise not to include absolute resale price maintenance in their franchise agreement. This in itself can render the franchise agreement null and void. In addition, it is very important to concretely and practically avoid price maintenance in practice and to actually act accordingly. This can be achieved, for example, by the fact that the franchisee continues a certain (price) promotion longer than planned, independently conducts (price) promotions, gives discounts, uses different sales prices for larger (volume) purchases, et cetera. The practice offers countless possibilities for this. In this way, the actual resale price maintenance can be avoided, with all the associated legal and economic risks.
Ludwig & Van Dam franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice
Other messages
Damage estimate after wrongful termination of the franchise agreement by the franchisor
In a judgment of the Supreme Court of 15 September 2017, ECLI:NL:HR:2017:2372 (Franchisee/Coop), it was discussed that supermarket organization Coop had not complied with agreements, as a result of which the franchisee
Franchisor is obliged to extend the franchise agreement
On 6 September 2017, the Rotterdam District Court ruled, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2017:6975 (Misty / Bram Ladage), that the refusal to extend a franchise agreement by a franchisor
The (in)validity of a post-contractual non-competition clause in a franchise agreement: analogy with employment law?
On 5 September 2017, the District Court of Gelderland, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2017:4565, rendered a judgment on, among other things, the question of whether Bruna, as a franchisor, could invoke the prohibition for a
Column Franchise+ – mr. J Sterk: “Court orders fast food chain to extend franchise agreement
The case is set to begin this year. For years, the franchisee has been refusing to sign the new franchise agreement that was offered with renewal, as it would lead to a deterioration of his legal position
Not a valid non-compete clause for franchisee
On 18 November 2016, the interim relief judge of the Central Netherlands District Court, ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2016:7754, rendered a judgment in the issue concerning whether the franchisee was held
Franchise & Law No. 5 – Acquisition Fraud and Franchising Act
The Acquisition Fraud Act came into effect on 1 July 2016. This includes amendments to Section 6:194 of the Dutch Civil Code.