Article Franchise+: “With our franchise formula you will earn mountains of gold.” dated 10 July 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
For example, the Amsterdam District Court ruled that a franchisor merely praised the franchise formula in general terms by stating that a certain average turnover is achieved by the franchisees. The fact that this average turnover is not achieved by a particular franchisee does not mean that the franchisor should not have made the announcement. Also, in another case, it was held that there were only general promotions with the statement that the franchise formula was “the best price level!” and is able “to achieve this best price level because you benefit from international purchasing advantage because you buy from the source.”
Promotions are not always permissible. After all, advertising can go further than an endorsement and may contain information, such as omissions, that is misleading are. It will not always be obvious when there are generalized praise and the provision or withholding of inadmissible information. information on the acquisition of franchisees by franchisors. The legislator has provided more clarity about the impermissible with the introduction of the Acquisition Fraud Act. Under acquisition fraud be deceptive commercial practices involving the use of certain sales techniques aimed at gaining trust and arousing expectations in order to induce the other to enter into an agreement, whereby the consideration is not or hardly properly provided. The law Acquisition fraud explicitly refers to misleading statements such as ten regarding “statistical data”. It is also worth considering in this context historical data or forecasts. Of commendation in general terms will then not soon. With franchising in particular, the franchise formula will be promoted by the franchisor with historical data or forecasts. The the question then is whether that commendation takes place in “general terms”. The distinction between permissible promotions and misleading information remains a gray area, despite the relevant legislation. Each individual case will always have to be judged on its own.
Click here for the entire article.
mr. AW Dolphijn – franchise lawyer
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice.
Do you want to respond? Go to dolphijn@ludwigvandam.nl
Other messages
Bankrupt because the franchisor refused to sell the franchise company – dated January 28, 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The District Court of The Hague has dealt with a request from a franchisor to declare a franchisee bankrupt.
Prescribed shop fitting – dated January 28, 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Midden-Nederland District Court has ruled on whether a franchisee is obliged to carry the shop fittings prescribed by the franchisor.
Ludwig & Van Dam attorneys summon Sandd and PostNL on behalf of the Sandd franchisees – dated 9 January 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Association of Franchisees of Sandd (VFS) has today summoned Sandd and PostNL before the court in Arnhem. The VFS believes that Sandd and PostNL are letting the franchisees down hard.
Article The National Franchise Guide: “Why joint and several liability, for example, next to private?” – dated 7 January 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
Franchisees are often asked to co-sign the franchise agreement in addition to their franchise, for example. Sometimes franchisees refuse to do so and the franchise agreement is not signed.
Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten assists Sandd franchisees: Franchisees Sandd challenge postal monopoly in court – dated 12 November 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Association of Franchisees of Sandd (VFS) is challenging the decision of State Secretary Mona Keijzer to approve the postal merger between PostNL and Sandd before the court in Rotterdam.
Franchisee trapped by non-compete clause? – dated October 21, 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
The District Court of East Brabant has ruled that a franchisee was still bound by the non-competition clause in the event of premature termination of the franchise agreement.