Abuse of bankruptcy law
The right must be used for the purpose for which it was written. The purpose of bankruptcy law is to prevent people or companies from continuing to accrue debt that they cannot pay off.
Bankruptcy law is often used by a franchisor as a means of pressure to induce the franchisee to pay promptly. If payment is not made on time, the franchisor immediately threatens to file for the bankruptcy of the franchisee. No room is left for a possible counterclaim or to contest the claim.
In short, the bankruptcy law indicates that bankruptcy can be declared when there are several creditors and the debtor is in a state in which he has ceased to pay. The requirement that there must be more than one creditor will often be met when a franchisor claims to have a claim against a franchisee. As a creditor, for example, the current account credit already counts. However, the fact that there are several creditors is not a sufficient condition to be declared bankrupt. In addition, there must also be a situation in which payment has ceased.
When a franchisee leaves an invoice unpaid and the franchisee has a reason for this, it is therefore advisable to properly communicate and record the reason for non-payment. If the franchisee does not pay for a reason, he is not in the situation that he has ceased to pay, so the reason must be known. In this way, the franchisee avoids being wrongly put under pressure to file for bankruptcy or, more annoyingly, that, after the franchisor has already filed for bankruptcy, the situation has to be explained to the court, where there is actually a discussion about the amount of the invoice or the quality of the service or goods provided.
Ludwig & Van Dam franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice
Other messages
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.
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?