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
Which court for a rental and franchise agreement?
Which court is competent to rule on a related rental and franchise agreement?
Interview Franchise+ – mrs. J. Sterk and AW Dolphijn – “Reversal burden of proof in forecasts honored by court”
The new Acquisition Fraud Act indeed appears to be relevant for the franchise industry, according to this article from Franchise+.
Franchisor convicted under the Acquisition Fraud Act
For the first time, a court has ruled, with reference to the Acquisition Fraud Act, that if a franchisee claims that the franchisor has presented an unsatisfactory prognosis
Agreements Related to the Franchise Agreement
On 31 October 2017, the Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal issued similar judgments for nineteen franchisees (ECLI:NL:GHARL:2017:9453 through ECLI:NL:GHARL:2017:9472).
Column Franchise+ – mr. J. Sterk – “Franchisee does body check better than franchise check”
A gym embarks on a franchise concept that offers “Body Checks” and discounts to (potential) members in collaboration with health insurers.
Seminar Mrs. J. Sterk and M. Munnik – Thursday, November 2, 2017: “Important legal developments for franchisors”
Attorneys Jeroen Sterk and Maaike Munnik of Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten will update you on the status of and developments surrounding the Dutch Franchise Code and the Acquisition Fraude Act.