Ex-Franchisee sentenced to rectification at EenVandaag after unacceptable statements
Very recently, the President has ruled in interlocutory proceedings that the franchisee has made statements, the correctness of which has not been established. In the context of the termination agreements made and the confidentiality observed, this franchisee was also not allowed to make those statements. The franchisee was sentenced to keep to those agreements in the future and also to refrain from negative reporting. The franchisee was also ordered to post a rectification to that effect on Eenvandaag’s Facebook page and by letter to the editors of Eenvandaag.
It is important to note that the President of the court considers that it is completely irrelevant that the franchisor has been given the opportunity to cooperate with the program. After all, franchisors have an interest in not responding to unjustified insinuations, partly in view of the franchisor’s position vis-à-vis (other) (prospective) franchisees.
The ruling shows that in the discussion surrounding the desire for legislation and self-regulation with regard to franchising, limits also apply and that all sorts of things cannot be said lightly and lightly without those facts having been established. If the parties have made agreements regarding the termination of a franchise relationship, the parties must also comply with them. The franchisee is then no longer free to make accusations, all the more so because the other party that does wish to comply with these agreements can no longer defend itself against this. The ruling also teaches us that not the (alleged) excesses that the media display, but nuanced arguments based on facts should support this discussion. In another case it also appeared earlier that the Court of Appeal had ruled that there are limits to the way in which franchisees express themselves in the media about a franchisor and these limits appeared to have been exceeded. However, these news items rarely receive attention. Perhaps if both the franchisor and the franchisee and the parties claiming to represent them take this into account, constructiveness may once again predominate in the discussion, which would be a good starting point for the franchise as a whole to achieve a viable self-regulation. more balanced form of franchising.
Mr. J. Strong – Franchise attorney
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice. Do you want to respond? Mail to Sterk@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.