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
Franchisee obliged to cooperate with formula change?
On 24 March 2017, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2017:1860, the preliminary relief judge of the Amsterdam District Court once again considered the issue in which Intertoys wishes to convert Bart Smit's stores
Delivery stop by franchisor not allowed
On 9 February 2017, the preliminary relief judge of the District Court of Gelderland, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2017:1372, ruled that a franchisor had not fulfilled its obligation to supply the franchisee
Alex Dolphijn in the Financial Dagblad about the judgment of the Supreme Court regarding Street-One
Franchisors more liable for incorrect forecasts Franchisees can now more easily hold their parent organization liable for incorrect profit and turnover forecasts.
Supermarket letter – 17
Supreme Court: More quickly liable for forecasts
Article in Entrance: “Small print”
“When I do business with a supplier, I never read the fine print. Recently I noticed that there are all kinds of things in it that I actually do not agree with.
Column Franchise+ – mr. Th.R. Ludwig: “Delivery stop by franchisor again not allowed”
Once again, the president in preliminary relief proceedings ruled on the question whether a franchisor's supply stop against the franchisee was permitted, with the franchisee paying a substantial




