The organizational structure of a franchisor
Earlier installments of this section have already discussed the consequences of a bankruptcy of the franchisor for the franchisees. They are of many kinds. Consideration was given to problems that may arise when the supplier of goods and services is a different entity than the contracting party with whom the franchise agreement has been concluded. Such a construction blocks the settlement of a claim from the franchisor’s side on account of, for example, unpaid goods and services against a claim of the franchisee against the franchisor on account of, for example, failed forecasts or other damage. Identification of both legal entities is an exception.
However, this theme touches on a much broader issue that is indirectly also addressed in the European Code of Honor on Franchising, namely the principle that a franchisor “is who he says he is”. In general, it is highly recommended, and good franchisor practice, to ensure that the entity with whom the franchisee enters into the franchise agreement is actually the accountable party for all matters related to the franchise relationship. It follows from the nature of the franchise agreement, and the related duty of care of a franchisor, that a franchisee must be able to address his franchisor at any time without hesitation, without first considering whether the matter he wishes to discuss is now has to do with delivered goods, forecasts, exclusive territory or whatever. Naturally, a franchisor can use contract suppliers. In that case, however, it must be made clear that the supplier concerned is a third party that independently concludes a supply agreement with the franchisees involved.
If work is done in accordance with the above, the franchisee knows at all times exactly who he is dealing with and where he stands. In principle, this also prevents a franchisor from being too tempted to use “empty” BVs, which, should a franchisee claim liability, ultimately offer no recourse. Such a state of affairs does not do justice to the nature of franchising as a form of cooperation. Incidentally, this reasoning also applies vice versa for the franchisee: he too should not hide behind legal personal constructions that stand in the way of both accountability and liability.
Ludwig & Van Dam franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice
Other messages
When does a franchisor go too far when recruiting franchisees?
The judgment of the Court of Appeal of Arnhem-Leeuwarden on 5 February 2019 dealt with whether the franchisor had acted impermissibly when recruiting the franchisees.
Advisory Board on Regulatory Pressure (ATR) advises State Secretary Keijzer about the Franchise Act
In short, it is first advised to actively inform franchisors and franchisees about this amendment to the law.
Post non-competition ban on services and sales franchise
When a franchise agreement ends, many franchisees encounter a prohibition in the franchise agreement to perform similar work for a period of time thereafter
The concept of the Franchise Act: impact for franchisors and franchisees – dated February 5, 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten believes that if the draft of the Franchise Act actually becomes law, a lot will change for franchisors and franchisees.
Buy franchise business and the laid off sick employee from 7 years ago
The question is whether a Bruna franchisee, when selling the franchise company to Bruna, should have stated that seven years ago an employee had left employment sick.
Court prohibits Domino’s unilateral area reduction when extending franchise agreements – dated January 28, 2019 – mr. RCWL Albers
On January 9, 2019, the District Court of Rotterdam rendered a judgment in a lawsuit initiated by the Association of Domino's Pizza Franchisees and all its members (almost all Domino's franchisees).