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
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.