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
Article Franchise+ – “Immediate information obligations of franchisors upon operation of the Franchise Act” – mr. AW Dolphijn – dated June 25, 2020
As soon as the Franchise Act enters into force, this will have an immediate effect on franchise agreements that already exist. The question is whether the information flows are set up optimally from a legal point of view.
Senate will adopt Franchise Act – dated 24 June 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The House of Representatives had unanimously adopted the proposal to introduce the Franchise Act on 16 June 2020
Franchise Act passed by the House of Representatives – dated 16 June 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Franchise Act was adopted by the House of Representatives on 16 June 2020.
Sandd franchisees find satisfaction in nullifying Sandd and PostNL merger – dated 12 June 2020
The franchisees of mail delivery company Sandd went to court in November, assisted by Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten. Court of Rotterdam rules on takeover by PostNL.
Plenary debate dated June 9, 2020 in the Lower House of the Franchise Act – dated June 10, 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
On 9 June 2020, the legislative proposal for the Franchise Act was discussed in plenary in the House of Representatives. An amendment and a motion have been tabled.
Franchising is “a bottleneck in tackling healthcare fraud” – dated 10 June 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
According to the various supervisory authorities in the healthcare sector, franchise constructions can be seen as a non-transparent business construction in which the supervision of professional and