Contribution Mr. AW Dolphijn in the magazine Contracteren 2022, no. 1 – The standstill period when entering into the franchise agreement
A contribution by mr Dolphijn has been published in the magazine Contracteren with the title: “The standstill period when entering into the franchise agreement”.
The Franchise Act introduces a standstill period for the franchisor prior to entering into a franchise agreement. This standstill period serves as a reflection period for the intended franchisee, but differs from other statutory regulations with a similar purpose. This is analyzed in this contribution.
The article can be ordered here from the publisher Boom Uitgevers.
Ludwig & Van Dam lawyers, franchise legal advice.
Do you want to respond? Then email to dolphijn@ludwigvandam.nl
![Pauze](https://www.ludwigvandam.nl/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Pauze.png)
Other messages
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.
Structurally unsound revenue forecasts from the franchisor
On 15 March 2017, the District Court of Limburg ruled in eight similar judgments (including ECLI:NL:RBLIM:2017:2344) on the franchise agreements of various franchisees of the P3 franchise formula.
Franchisee obliged to cooperate with formula change?
On 24 March 2017, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2017:1860, the preliminary relief judge of the Amsterdam District Court once again considered the issue in which Intertoys wishes to convert Bart Smit's stores
Delivery stop by franchisor not allowed
On 9 February 2017, the preliminary relief judge of the District Court of Gelderland, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2017:1372, ruled that a franchisor had not fulfilled its obligation to supply the franchisee