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 include the franchise agreement
sign, in addition to their franchise eg. Sometimes franchisees refuse that and
the franchise agreement is not signed. It’s amazing that
there is then so little discussion to see whether there is nothing to do
fit.
Franchisees often set up a BV to limit their own
liability in private. Not surprising, because
franchise agreements are often concluded for a longer period of time and there
also often involves significant investments. If it goes wrong, then
the entrepreneur himself remains unaffected. Signing for liability
in private, therefore, franchisees will not easily consider desirable. She
then voluntarily assume the liability in private.
Of course, franchisors don’t want things to go wrong either
franchisees, but when things go wrong, franchisors often will too
try to minimize their losses. Leave it in private
co-signing by the entrepreneur then has the aim that the entrepreneur in addition to the
bv is liable for the obligations under the franchise agreement. In
in that case, the franchisor can choose which party to address. As the
eg is “empty”, the entrepreneur can be addressed and, for example, the
surplus value on his owner-occupied home. So far will many
franchisors don’t let it come. If a franchisor notices that the
periodic fee is no longer paid, or the orders are not fulfilled
become, the franchisor will quickly stop the deliveries or the
terminate the franchise agreement.
A solution could be to agree that the entrepreneur only in very
serious cases, e.g. fraud, will be personally liable.
A ceiling in the scope of liability in private can also be set
be agreed upon. Or it can be agreed that the entrepreneur will only come in
is addressed privately after it has been established that the company really does not have a penny left
has.
By dealing creatively with the interests of both parties, this can be achieved
sometimes still signed a franchise agreement to everyone’s satisfaction
become.
Click here for the published article.
mr. AW Dolphijn – franchise lawyer
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice. Want
you respond?
Go to dolphijn@ludwigvandam.nl
Other messages
No non-compete violation by franchisee – mr. AW Dolphijn – dated February 4, 2021
On 20 January 2021, the District Court of Rotterdam, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2021:657, ...
(Partially) similar activities not in conflict with non-compete clause – mr. RCWL Albers – dated February 4, 2021
In recent proceedings, two (former) franchisees were sued by their ...
Court issues groundbreaking verdict: Rent reduction in substantive proceedings for catering operators as a result of the lockdown – mr. C. Damen – dated February 1, 2021
Last Wednesday, a controversial ruling was made and published for ...
Article Franchise+ -The risks of a minimum turnover requirement in the franchise agreement for the franchisor
Including a minimum turnover to be achieved in the franchise ...
Article The National Franchise Guide: “Minimum turnover as a forecast”
For many years now, the responsibility and liability of the ...
Article Franchise+ – “Franchise statistics 2019: decline trend continues, caused by the Franchise Act?”- mr. J. Sterk, mr. M. Munnik and mr. JAJ Devilee
Since 2007, Ludwig & Van Dam attorneys have been periodically ...