Duty of care of the financing bank with regard to forecast and franchise agreement
On 16 March 2016, the District Court of Rotterdam, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2016:1769, rendered a judgment on the question to what extent the
bank could have provided financing to a franchisee for entering into a franchise agreement and operating the
Franchise formula.
The bank had provided financing to the franchisee for operating a franchise formula under a franchise agreement with the franchisor. Because the franchisee fails to meet its payment obligations to the bank, the bank has demanded the financing provided. The franchisee accuses the bank of violating its banking duty of care. The court ruled that the banking duty of care serves to protect borrowers against their own rashness and lack of insight. The extent of this duty of care depends on the circumstances of the case, such as the expertise and experience of the borrower and the complexity and risks of the credit product. If a lender has failed in its duty of care, this may lead, among other things, to Article 6:248(2) of the Dutch Civil Code preventing the claim for (full) repayment of the credit taken out.
The franchisee points to a number of circumstances that would cause the bank to breach its duty of care, including the existence of the franchise agreement. However, the court is of the opinion that the nature and content of the franchise agreement does not mean that the bank has a more far-reaching duty of care than described above. The nature and content of the franchise agreement were irrelevant here, as it would concern a regular financing agreement whereby the risks for the franchisee were clear.
It does not appear from the judgment that the franchisor had provided the franchisee with a prognosis and furthermore it does not appear whether the bank also took a prognosis into account in its decision to provide the financing. It is not inconceivable that in that case the bank should (also) have protected the franchisee against its own rashness and lack of insight. If the prognosis was unsound, and the bank (seen
her expertise), the franchisee might have been more successful in defending the bank. Perhaps a parallel can be drawn here between the banking duty of care and the duty of care that under certain circumstances is also imposed on a 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
Judge: Protect franchisee against supermarket organization (Coop) as lessor
Does the franchisee need legal protection from supermarket franchisor Coop? The District Court of Rotterdam ruled on 9 February 2018, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2018:1151, that this is the case.
Acquisition fraud vs. error in franchise forecasting
Who has to prove that the franchisor's forecast is unsound? In principle, this is the franchisee. If the franchisee invokes the Acquisition Fraud Act, it may be that
Obligation to sell back at the end of the franchise agreement
Franchise agreements sometimes provide that the franchisee is required to sell back purchased assets at the end of the franchise agreement.
Supermarket letter – 20
Uncertain legal position of Emté franchisees
Position of franchisees in franchisor restructuring
Franchisees must be adequately and generously informed in advance by the franchisor about the content and consequences of (further) agreements...
Interview Franchise+ – mrs. J. Sterk and AW Dolphijn – “Reversal of burden of proof in forecasts approved by court” – February 2018
The new Acquisition Fraud Act indeed appears to be relevant for the franchise industry, according to this article from Franchise+. Alex Dolphijn of Ludwig & Van Dam assists a franchisee in a