Between the franchisor’s diagnosis and forecasting duty

By Published On: 05-10-2021Categories: Statements & current affairs

In the leading legal scientific journal WPNR, Mr. Dolphijn a contribution in which forecasts in franchise disputes are discussed.

With the Franchise Act, the legislator did not want to introduce a forecasting obligation, but an obligation to provide certain relevant available information to the intended franchisee in the pre-contractual phase. The intended franchisee must provide financial information for this purpose, which the franchisor must examine. One could speak of a duty of diagnosis on the part of the franchisor. This should be distinguished from a duty to forecast, but how big is this distinction?

The article is entitled “Between the diagnosis and forecasting obligation of the franchisor” and published in WPNR 7341 (2021) dated October 2, 2021 on p. 729 to 741 and can be ordered from the publisher via the following link: https:// wpnr-knb.sdu.nl/node/13635

mr. A.W. Dolphijn
Ludwig & Van Dam lawyers, franchise legal advice.
Do you want to respond? Then email to dolphijn@ludwigvandam.nl

Other messages

On the edge of a franchisee’s exclusive territory

The Court of Appeal of Arnhem-Leeuwarden ruled on 15 May 2018, ECLI:NL:GHARL:2018:4395, on the question whether a franchisor has a branch just over the edge of the exclusively granted protection area.

Can a franchisee cohabit with a competing entrepreneur?

Can a franchisee violate a non-compete clause by cohabiting with someone who runs a competing business? On January 12, 2018, the District Court of Central Netherlands ruled

Not an exclusive catchment area, but still exclusivity for the franchisee

The judgment of the District Court of Noord-Holland dated 18 April 2018, ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2018:3268, ruled on the exclusivity area of ​​a franchisee.

Termination or dissolution of the franchise agreement by the franchisee

In principle, franchise agreements can be terminated prematurely, for example by cancellation or dissolution. On 21 March 2018, the District Court of Overijssel ruled on ECLI:NL:RBOVE:2018:1335 on

Go to Top