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
![218stats-min](https://www.ludwigvandam.nl/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/218stats-min.jpg)
Other messages
Unauthorized unilateral collective fee increase by the franchisor
In an important decision of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal of 23 April 2014, the question was whether a franchisor was allowed to implement an increase in a contribution.
Interests Association of Franchisees of the Netherlands (BVFN) is in further consultation with the Minister
On April 16, 2014, the previously announced meeting between the Belangen Vereniging Franchisenemers Nederland (BVFN) and the Ministry of Economic Affairs took place.
Exoneration of duty of care with the franchisor’s prognosis
In a judgment of the Overijssel court of 9 April 2014, the interesting question arose whether a collaboration should be qualified as a franchise.
Non-competition clause is lost in summary proceedings
Recently, the preliminary relief judge in Rotterdam ruled that a franchisee was not bound by the non-competition clause included in the franchise agreement.
Advance on compensation after an unsound prognosis
In a beautifully substantiated summary judgment of the Northern Netherlands Court of 9 April 2014, the question was whether an advance should be paid for the damage assessment procedure.
Collection point requires shopping destination
In my supermarket newsletter of July 11, 2013, I already predicted that the establishment of collection points for goods ordered via the internet would set the judicial pens in motion.