Restyling forecasts
As is well known, a good franchisor offers its franchisee a sound investment exploitation forecast at the start. It should be possible to derive the turnover and the result for the franchisee for a period of, for example, three years from this investment/exploitation forecast. It goes without saying that the franchisee has a great responsibility in this respect, by actively convincing himself of the correctness of the prognosis provided. If this prognosis is clearly incorrect, and the franchisee cannot be blamed for his efforts and diligence, then the responsibility for this can, under certain circumstances, be traced back to the franchisor. After all, as an experienced party with regard to the pretended success formula, he is expected to properly assess the correctness of the prognosis.
What is the situation now with the reorganization of the franchise formula? Are the responsibilities identical in the case of a major restyling, for example?
Every franchise formula has to deal with modernization and adaptation of the formula from time to time. Fashion chains, for example, usually have fast retail cycles. More than once, this means that substantial reinvestments must be made every few years. Sometimes this reinvestment takes place by the franchisor, suppliers and franchisees together, but sometimes a franchisee is faced with a very drastic reinvestment in the refinancing of his company. This situation is comparable to a pre-contractual phase. This means that the franchisor is also largely responsible for correctly assessing the feasibility and degree of success of the restyling. In that context, a good franchisor will once again provide a sound investment and operating forecast for a period of, for example, three years. Of course in that situation the franchisee has more experience than before. However, in the dependency relationship in which the franchisee also finds himself, the franchisor is nevertheless expected to adequately and correctly assess the correctness of this.
The franchisor and franchisees would be wise to proceed to a possible restyling on the basis of consensus and to make agreements for the rest if this unexpectedly turns out to be disappointing in individual situations.
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.