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
HEMA sentenced to suspend e-commerce contribution to franchisees
HEMA is in conflict with its franchisees about the contribution to e-commerce costs. HEMA believes that the existing scheme from 1997 is outdated.
Error or deception in the conclusion of the franchise agreement
A franchisee who regrets after entering into a franchise agreement may believe that before or at the conclusion of the franchise agreement by the franchisor ...
Supermarket letter – 21
Judge: Protect franchisee against supermarket organization (Coop) as lessor
The supplier prescribed by the franchisor is not performing? What now?
The Court of Appeal of 's-Hertogenbosch ruled on 20 February 2018, ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2018:727, on the question of who must prove that the franchisee was misled when entering into the
Judge: Protect franchisee against supermarket organization (Coop) as lessor
Does the franchisee need legal protection from supermarket franchisor Coop? The District Court of Rotterdam ruled on 9 February 2018, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2018:1151, that this is the case.
Acquisition fraud vs. error in franchise forecasting
Who has to prove that the franchisor's forecast is unsound? In principle, this is the franchisee. If the franchisee invokes the Acquisition Fraud Act, it may be that