Definitely a violation of the standstill obligation.
In a judgment of the Rotterdam District Court of 15 May 2024, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2024:4598, it was ruled that – even if the franchisee deliberately did not want to observe the standstill period – the concluded franchise agreement is nevertheless voidable.
The court ruled that the statutory regulation of the standstill period in franchise agreements (laid down in Article 7:914 of the Dutch Civil Code) stipulates that the franchisor has an obligation to provide information prior to the conclusion of the franchise agreement: it must provide certain information about the intended franchise collaboration (as specified). in Article 7:913 paragraph 2 of the Dutch Civil Code) to the intended franchisee “in a timely manner”. This information must be provided at least four weeks before the conclusion of the franchise agreement. During that period, the franchisor may not conclude the franchise agreement or any agreement inextricably linked to it. During that period, it may also not encourage the intended franchisee to make payments related to the agreement yet to be concluded.
In the present case, the standstill obligation has not been observed. The franchise agreement was concluded well within the period of four weeks after the parties came into contact with each other, nor was the prescribed information about the intended franchise collaboration provided in a timely manner. The franchise agreement was therefore concluded in violation of the legal regulations regarding the standstill period obligations.
Pursuant to Article 7:922 of the Dutch Civil Code, the legal regulations regarding the standstill period may not be deviated from to the detriment of the franchisee. In the present case, the franchisor believed that the franchisee himself insisted on expeditiousness and that the parties (according to the franchisor) had explicitly discussed the standstill obligation at the start of their contact and how to deal with it in the given circumstances. According to the franchisor, the franchisee would therefore have deliberately not wanted to observe the standstill period.
According to the court, the legal rules on this point should also be deemed to be intended to protect an overenthusiastic franchisee from himself. The deviation from the standstill provision is therefore to the disadvantage of the franchisee. This means that the franchise agreement is voidable and has been legally annulled by the franchisee. It is also ruled that the franchisor has acted unlawfully. Further litigation is ongoing regarding the extent of the damage.
In a ruling by the Northern Netherlands District Court of February 21, 2024, ECLI:NL:RBNNE:2024:548, it was ruled that – despite the fact that the legal standstill period of at least 4 weeks had not been observed – the franchisee had not reasonably had an interest in invoking the statutory scheme. See more about this: https://www.ludwigvandam.nl/geen-schending-standstill-vermanding/
Ludwig & Van Dam lawyers, franchise legal advice.
Do you want to respond? Then email to dolphijn@ludwigvandam.nl
Other messages
Bankrupt because the franchisor refused to sell the franchise company – dated January 28, 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The District Court of The Hague has dealt with a request from a franchisor to declare a franchisee bankrupt.
Prescribed shop fitting – dated January 28, 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Midden-Nederland District Court has ruled on whether a franchisee is obliged to carry the shop fittings prescribed by the franchisor.
Ludwig & Van Dam attorneys summon Sandd and PostNL on behalf of the Sandd franchisees – dated 9 January 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Association of Franchisees of Sandd (VFS) has today summoned Sandd and PostNL before the court in Arnhem. The VFS believes that Sandd and PostNL are letting the franchisees down hard.
Article The National Franchise Guide: “Why joint and several liability, for example, next to private?” – dated 7 January 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
Franchisees are often asked to co-sign the franchise agreement in addition to their franchise, for example. Sometimes franchisees refuse to do so and the franchise agreement is not signed.
Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten assists Sandd franchisees: Franchisees Sandd challenge postal monopoly in court – dated 12 November 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Association of Franchisees of Sandd (VFS) is challenging the decision of State Secretary Mona Keijzer to approve the postal merger between PostNL and Sandd before the court in Rotterdam.
Franchisee trapped by non-compete clause? – dated October 21, 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
The District Court of East Brabant has ruled that a franchisee was still bound by the non-competition clause in the event of premature termination of the franchise agreement.