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
Does a franchisee have to accept a new model franchise agreement?
On 31 March 2017, the District Court of Rotterdam, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2017:2457, ruled in interlocutory proceedings on the question whether franchisor Bram Ladage had complied with the franchise agreement with its franchisee.
Mandatory (market-based) purchase prices for franchisees
To what extent can a franchisor change agreements about the (market) purchase prices of the goods that the franchisees are obliged to purchase?
Director’s liability of a franchisee after failing to rely on an unsound prognosis.
On 11 July 2017, the Court of Appeal of 's-Hertogenbosch made a decision on whether the franchisor could successfully sue the director of a BV for non-compliance with the
Liability accountant for prepared prognosis?
In a judgment of the Court of Appeal of 's-Hertogenbosch of 11 July 2017, ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2017:3153, it was discussed that franchisees accused the franchisor's accountant of being liable
How far does the bank’s duty of care extend?
Some time ago the question was raised in case law what the position of the bank is in the triangular relationship franchisor – bank – franchisee.
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.