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
Does a franchisee have to accept a new model franchise agreement?
On 31 March 2017, the District Court of Rotterdam, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2017:2457, ruled in interlocutory proceedings on the question whether franchisor Bram Ladage had complied with the franchise agreement with its franchisee.
Mandatory (market-based) purchase prices for franchisees
To what extent can a franchisor change agreements about the (market) purchase prices of the goods that the franchisees are obliged to purchase?
Director’s liability of a franchisee after failing to rely on an unsound prognosis.
On 11 July 2017, the Court of Appeal of 's-Hertogenbosch made a decision on whether the franchisor could successfully sue the director of a BV for non-compliance with the
Liability accountant for prepared prognosis?
In a judgment of the Court of Appeal of 's-Hertogenbosch of 11 July 2017, ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2017:3153, it was discussed that franchisees accused the franchisor's accountant of being liable
How far does the bank’s duty of care extend?
Some time ago the question was raised in case law what the position of the bank is in the triangular relationship franchisor – bank – franchisee.
Burden of proof reversal in forecasting as misleading advertising?
In an interlocutory judgment of 15 June 2017, the District Court of Zeeland-West-Brabant, ECLI:NL:RBZWB:2017:3833, ruled on a claim for (among other things) suspension of the non-compete clause.