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
Column Franchise + – mr. Th.R. Ludwig: “Towards strict liability”
The Supreme Court recently ruled in a prognosis issue.
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