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

Burden of proof reversal in forecasting as misleading advertising?

In an interlocutory judgment of 15 June 2017, the District Court of Zeeland-West-Brabant, ECLI:NL:RBZWB:2017:3833, ruled on a claim for (among other things) suspension of the non-compete clause.

Fine for franchisor because aspiring franchisee is foreigner

On 5 July 2017, the Council of State, ECLI:NL:RVS:2017:1815, decided whether, in the case of (proposed) cooperation between a franchisor and a prospective franchisee, the franchisor

Article in Entrance: “Company name”

“I came up with a wonderful name for my catering company and incurred the necessary costs for this. Now there is another entrepreneur who is going to use almost the same one. Is that allowed?"

By Alex Dolphijn|01-07-2017|Categories: Dispute settlement, Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , |

Arbitration clause in franchise agreement sometimes inconvenient

On 20 July 2016, the District Court of Gelderland, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2016:4868, ruled on the validity of an agreement in a franchise agreement, whereby disputes would be settled

By Alex Dolphijn|19-05-2017|Categories: Dispute settlement, Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , |
Go to Top