Between the franchisor’s diagnosis and forecasting duty
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
Ludwig & Van Dam lawyers, franchise legal advice.
Do you want to respond? Then email to dolphijn@ludwigvandam.nl
Other messages
Supermarket letter – 22
No Dutch Franchise Code, but legislation on franchising.
No Dutch Franchise Code, but legislation on franchising
The State Secretary has announced that the Dutch Franchise Code ("NFC") will not be enshrined in law. However, there will be legislation on franchising.
HEMA sentenced to suspend e-commerce contribution to franchisees
HEMA is in conflict with its franchisees about the contribution to e-commerce costs. HEMA believes that the existing scheme from 1997 is outdated.
Error or deception in the conclusion of the franchise agreement
A franchisee who regrets after entering into a franchise agreement may believe that before or at the conclusion of the franchise agreement by the franchisor ...
Supermarket letter – 21
Judge: Protect franchisee against supermarket organization (Coop) as lessor
The supplier prescribed by the franchisor is not performing? What now?
The Court of Appeal of 's-Hertogenbosch ruled on 20 February 2018, ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2018:727, on the question of who must prove that the franchisee was misled when entering into the