Directors’ Liability Concerning Franchising: Deception or Collaboration Plan
On 9 June 2015, the Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal ruled (ECLI:NL:GHARL:2015:4196) on the question of whether directors of a legal entity acted unlawfully by presenting the possibilities for, among other things, setting up a franchise formula in China.
Appellants operate, among other things, cosmetic products under the name WinSpa. The directors of a legal entity presented a plan on the basis of which the appellants were invited to cooperate. In particular, a Business and Marketing Plan for sales in China was presented, in which the appellants were, for example, promised distribution through points of sale in China. The appellants were also told that they could set up a franchise organization in China to market the products of the appellants. On the basis of those statements, the appellants provided a large number of product samples free of charge. This collaboration ends in a fiasco.
The appellants claim, among other things, that the directors are personally liable for the damage. The accusation is that the appellants suffered damage because they entered into an agreement with the legal entity to provide valuable samples free of charge, based on the repeated statements being firmly convinced that these samples would be recouped in the short term, because these samples would be used to supply the pretended outlets, when these outlets did not exist at all.
The Court of Appeal focuses on the question of whether the statements are an (incorrect) representation of the existing situation (as the appellants seem to claim), or a plan for approaching the Chinese market. The Court of Appeal ruled that the latter is the case and that it was therefore not assumed that there was already a sales network in China. Because there were only promising and speculative plans, the provision of samples of products free of charge by the appellants cannot be traced back to the statements made by the directors. It makes no difference whether one now tests against the standard of Article 6:162 of the Dutch Civil Code or against the stricter standard for the liability of directors of a legal entity as elaborated by the Supreme Court in its judgment of 8 December 2006, ECLI:NL: HR:2006:AZ0758 (Recipient/Roelofsen). The conclusion is always that there is no liability on the part of the directors, according to the Court of Appeal.
It follows from this ruling that a plan to jointly target a market by means of franchising need not contain a misleading statement. There will therefore be no question of directors’ liability.
Mr AW Dolphijn – Franchise lawyer
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice. Do you want to respond? Mail to dolphijn@ludwigvandam.nl
Other messages
When does a franchisor go too far when recruiting franchisees?
The judgment of the Court of Appeal of Arnhem-Leeuwarden on 5 February 2019 dealt with whether the franchisor had acted impermissibly when recruiting the franchisees.
Advisory Board on Regulatory Pressure (ATR) advises State Secretary Keijzer about the Franchise Act
In short, it is first advised to actively inform franchisors and franchisees about this amendment to the law.
Post non-competition ban on services and sales franchise
When a franchise agreement ends, many franchisees encounter a prohibition in the franchise agreement to perform similar work for a period of time thereafter
The concept of the Franchise Act: impact for franchisors and franchisees – dated February 5, 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten believes that if the draft of the Franchise Act actually becomes law, a lot will change for franchisors and franchisees.
Buy franchise business and the laid off sick employee from 7 years ago
The question is whether a Bruna franchisee, when selling the franchise company to Bruna, should have stated that seven years ago an employee had left employment sick.
Court prohibits Domino’s unilateral area reduction when extending franchise agreements – dated January 28, 2019 – mr. RCWL Albers
On January 9, 2019, the District Court of Rotterdam rendered a judgment in a lawsuit initiated by the Association of Domino's Pizza Franchisees and all its members (almost all Domino's franchisees).