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

Article in Entrance: “Rentals”

“The landlord increased the prices of the property every year, but he hasn't done this for 2 years, maybe he forgets. Can he still claim an overdue amount later?”

No valid appeal to non-compete clause in franchising

On 28 February 2017, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2017:1469, the provisional relief judge of the District Court of Gelderland ruled on whether a franchisee could be bound by a non-compete clause.

Structurally unsound revenue forecasts from the franchisor

On 15 March 2017, the District Court of Limburg ruled in eight similar judgments (including ECLI:NL:RBLIM:2017:2344) on the franchise agreements of various franchisees of the P3 franchise formula.

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

Go to Top