Distribution agreement or agency agreement: find the differences
Court of The Hague
The court in The Hague recently ruled whether there was a distribution agreement (this could be a franchise agreement, for example) or an agency agreement. Under Dutch law, the distinction between a distribution agreement (franchise agreement and an agency agreement) mainly lies in the fact that an agent mediates purely on behalf of his principal (client) in the conclusion of the agreements between the principal and the customer, while a distributor (franchisee) on the other hand, purchases products in its own name and for its own account and risk and then resells them.
The distinction is very important in connection with numerous legal obligations that apply to an agent, where they do not automatically apply to a distributor (franchisee), unless the franchisee and franchisor have arranged this in their franchise agreement. If there is mediation between the agent (this can also be a franchisee) and, as stated above, the principal (client, the company in question) and the consumer, under certain circumstances there is also a claim to legal goodwill upon termination of the contract. the contract between the agent and the principal. This is fundamentally different with a distribution agreement, where this legal right is absent. When the distribution agreement or agency agreement is terminated, other rights and obligations arise for the parties. Incidentally, in practice it appears that the systems can also go together. For example, there is a franchise agreement with agency elements or vice versa. This is very well possible, although the franchisee / agent and the franchisor / principal must make various choices with regard to their contract options. The choices are thereby limited, since not all agency provisions can be set aside by law, if this were desirable at all. In this case, the court ruled that there was a distribution agreement, which can have various consequences for the parties in the eventual settlement of their relationship in the long term.
Mr Th.R. Ludwig – Franchise attorney
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice Would you like to respond? Mail to ludwig@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.