Proven formula for success – a sequel

Unfortunately, in recent months it has become increasingly common for franchisees to run into problems as a result of, in short, a franchise formula that looked good on paper, but turned out not to work in practice. This often concerns small franchise organizations in the start-up phase, usually already in the first year of their existence. The cause of the problems can often be found in the fact that the franchisor in question has either just started in the sector or has been working in it for some time, but has no experience with franchising. Through their own entrepreneurship, and perhaps a dose of luck, the involved franchisor manages to set up and maintain his own company, but the franchisees are often confronted with a concept that does not work at all linked to their person. This translates into virtually no turnover and substantial losses.

The European Code of Honor on Franchising, a code of conduct to which all franchisors affiliated with the Dutch Franchise Association must adhere, but of which it is highly recommended that non-members also follow the instructions therein, stipulates that before a concept or formula is is offered to franchisees through franchise agreements, there must be a proven formula for success, and therefore a track record. That track record can be achieved, for example, by operating a pilot store for a longer period of time, a pilot project as it were, which can be used to determine whether the concept can actually function, independently of the person of the franchisor. In that case there can be a proven formula for success and only then can setbacks as referred to above, often with very far-reaching negative consequences for the franchisees, but also for the franchisor, be prevented.

Ludwig & Van Dam franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice

Other messages

Judge: Protect franchisee against supermarket organization (Coop) as lessor

Does the franchisee need legal protection from supermarket franchisor Coop? The District Court of Rotterdam ruled on 9 February 2018, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2018:1151, that this is the case.

Acquisition fraud vs. error in franchise forecasting

Who has to prove that the franchisor's forecast is unsound? In principle, this is the franchisee. If the franchisee invokes the Acquisition Fraud Act, it may be that

Obligation to sell back at the end of the franchise agreement

Franchise agreements sometimes provide that the franchisee is required to sell back purchased assets at the end of the franchise agreement.

Position of franchisees in franchisor restructuring

Franchisees must be adequately and generously informed in advance by the franchisor about the content and consequences of (further) agreements...

Interview Franchise+ – mrs. J. Sterk and AW Dolphijn – “Reversal of burden of proof in forecasts approved by court” – February 2018

The new Acquisition Fraud Act indeed appears to be relevant for the franchise industry, according to this article from Franchise+. Alex Dolphijn of Ludwig & Van Dam assists a franchisee in a

By Ludwig en van Dam|01-02-2018|Categories: Dispute settlement, Forecasting issues, Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , , |
Go to Top