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 – 18
Can an entrepreneur be obliged to operate a different supermarket formula?
Article in Entrance: “New owner”
“The catering company where I work has been taken over. The new owner now says that I no longer have to work for him, but can he refuse me as an employee?”
Directors’ liability in the settlement of a franchise agreement
Privately, can the director of a franchisee legal entity be liable to the franchisor if the franchisee legal entity wrongfully fails to provide business to the franchisor?
Column Franchise + – mr. Th.R. Ludwig: “Towards strict liability”
The Supreme Court recently ruled in a prognosis issue.
Article in Entrance: “Rentals”
“The landlord increased the prices of the property every year, but he hasn't done this for 2 years, maybe he forgets. Can he still claim an overdue amount later?”
No valid appeal to non-compete clause in franchising
On 28 February 2017, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2017:1469, the provisional relief judge of the District Court of Gelderland ruled on whether a franchisee could be bound by a non-compete clause.