Article De Nationale Franchise Gids: “Information obligations of the intended franchisee under the Franchise Act” – dated August 7, 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
Although the purpose of the Franchise Act is to protect franchisees
against franchisors, there are also some obligations for it
franchisees determined. Especially with regard to the phase prior to
a number of conditions apply to the conclusion of the franchise agreement
explicit legal rules pertaining to the intended franchisee.
The intended franchisee must, before closing the
franchise agreement, to the franchisor timely information about its
to disclose its own financial position, insofar as this is reasonable
importance. After all, the exploitation of the franchise formula requires both
commencement and during the franchise relationship investments on the part of the
franchisee. In the pre-contractual phase, the franchisee will therefore
must make information available to the franchisor
gives the (to be obtained) financial scope and coverage for such
able to make investments.
The Prospective Franchisee shall continue to serve, within the bounds of reasonableness
and fairness, to take the necessary measures to prevent him
proceeds to close under the influence of incorrect assumptions
of the franchise agreement. The intended franchisee therefore serves a certain
to conduct research. In any case, this can be counted on
properly reviewing the information received from the franchisor,
if necessary, calling in expert assistance in a timely manner and, if necessary, the
making inquiries with other franchisees within the chain about their
experiences with the exploitation of the relevant franchise formula.
In retrospect, if a (prospective) franchisee does not, franchisors,
have not been properly or not fully informed, then the law can
franchise affect the validity of the franchise agreement. Also
could a franchisee be liable for damages on the basis of the act
against the law.
mr. AW Dolphijn – franchise lawyer
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice. Want
you respond? Go to dolphijn@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