Advisory Board on Regulatory Pressure (ATR) advises State Secretary Keijzer about the Franchise Act
The ATR recommends submitting the bill only after a number of points of advice have been taken into account. The advice is particularly worth reading and can be consulted via the link: https://www.atr-regeldruk.nl/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/30-U010-Ministerie-van-EZK-Wet-franchise-wgpdf
In short, it is first advised to actively inform franchisors and franchisees about this amendment to the law. Now that the consultation that has now closed shows that it has passed a large part of the industry, this seems to be extremely useful advice. It is also recommended to monitor the effectiveness of the law and to include an evaluation provision in the law. Now that the franchise agreement will move from an unnamed to a named agreement, this also seems like a welcome addition to the bill. The ATR also calls attention to the transitional period. In addition, the ATR asks for more clarification and definitions to be included in the bill for concepts that have not yet been further defined, such as “good franchisor and franchiseeship” “considerable consequences” etc. The ATR also recommends actively communicating goodwill calculation best practices so that parties know where they stand before concluding the franchise agreement. Finally, the ATR recommends including examples of what is meant by “conditions customary in trade”.
In short, the ATR is of the opinion that parts of the proposed legislation are not yet sufficiently concrete and known to have the desired effect in legal practice, or preventively, namely a more balanced franchise sector. We are particularly curious to what extent the Ministry takes into account the advice of the ATR.
mr. J. Strong – franchise lawyer
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice. Do you want to respond? Go to strong@ludwigvandam.nl
Other messages
Ludwig & Van Dam attorneys summon Sandd and PostNL on behalf of the Sandd franchisees – dated 9 January 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Association of Franchisees of Sandd (VFS) has today summoned Sandd and PostNL before the court in Arnhem. The VFS believes that Sandd and PostNL are letting the franchisees down hard.
Article The National Franchise Guide: “Why joint and several liability, for example, next to private?” – dated 7 January 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
Franchisees are often asked to co-sign the franchise agreement in addition to their franchise, for example. Sometimes franchisees refuse to do so and the franchise agreement is not signed.
Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten assists Sandd franchisees: Franchisees Sandd challenge postal monopoly in court – dated 12 November 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Association of Franchisees of Sandd (VFS) is challenging the decision of State Secretary Mona Keijzer to approve the postal merger between PostNL and Sandd before the court in Rotterdam.
Franchisee trapped by non-compete clause? – dated October 21, 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
The District Court of East Brabant has ruled that a franchisee was still bound by the non-competition clause in the event of premature termination of the franchise agreement.
Supermarket letter – 26
Supermarket Newsletter No. 26
Link franchise agreement and rental agreement uncertain? – dated October 14, 2019 – mr K. Bastiaans
It is no exception within a franchise relationship that the parties agree that the franchise agreement and the rental agreement are inextricably linked.