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 ruled on whether the franchisor could successfully sue the director of a BV for non-compliance with the franchise agreement.
Shortly after the start of the term, the franchisee stopped executing the franchise agreement because it believed that there was a difference of opinion between the parties, including the accusation that the franchisor had presented it with an unsatisfactory prognosis.
The franchisor claimed payment of the damage resulting from non-compliance with the franchise agreement by the BV and the director of the BV. It had already been established in the first instance that the franchise agreement had only been concluded with the BV. The question was therefore whether the director had acted unlawfully towards the franchisor. The court held that this was the case.
The Court of Appeal considers that if a director has caused or allowed the BV to fail to comply with a (franchise) agreement it has entered into and thereby causes damage to the other party (in this case the franchisor), the director may be personally liable. Such liability will in any case arise if it is established that the director knew or should reasonably have understood that the damage would arise and also that the BV would offer no recourse for the damage.
The franchisor argued that the director in question was the only person acting within the BV and that she was the one who entered into the franchise agreement for the BV and who would perform the work. The director stated that she was obliged to serve the interests of the BV and to terminate the franchise agreement in view of this. After all, with the execution of the franchise agreement, the BV would only incur a loss.
The Court of Appeal ruled that it is not allowed to conclude directors’ liability on the basis of an unlawful act too quickly and that the alleged facts are insufficient. The conclusion is that, according to the court, the director, contrary to the opinion of the court, is not personally liable to the franchisor.
mr. AW Dolphijn – Franchise lawyer
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice. Do you want to respond? Go to dolphijn@ludwigvandam.nl .
Other messages
Article The National Franchise Guide – “Corona discount of 50% on the rent” – mr. AW Dolphijn – dated September 15, 2020
Disappointing turnover due to the corona crisis may mean that the rent is halved, even if the rent is partly turnover-related.
Article Franchise+ – “Franchisor uses “derivative formula” (without his knowledge)” – mr. AW Dolphijn – dated September 9, 2020
Many franchisors will not be aware of the fact that they use a "derived formula" as referred to in the Franchise Act.
Article Franchise+ – “Obligations and rights of the starting franchisee” – mr. AW Dolphijn – dd
What should you pay attention to as a starting franchisee, what are your obligations and what are your rights when concluding the franchise agreement?
Article Mr. C. Damen – Three conditions for the right to customer compensation for the agent upon termination of the agency agreement – dated August 26, 2020
In the agency relationship between an agent and a client (the principal), the parties record their cooperation agreements in an agency agreement. When the principal enters into the agency agreement
Article Mr. C. Damen – “When does the obligation to provide proof apply for the submission of the franchise agreement?” dated August 17, 2020
Does the obligation to produce information apply to showing a (franchise) agreement in proceedings if the parties to the proceedings do not have a legal relationship to the (franchise) agreement?
Article Mr. AW Dolphijn – “How do you value a franchise company with a discharge loan?” – dated August 14, 2020
A discharge loan is a proven means of franchisors to find long-term franchisees.