Franchise agreement negotiations broken off
The District Court of Gelderland ruled on 6 May 2015 (ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2015:4708) on the question of whether a prospective franchisee and a franchisor had reached such a level of negotiation that the franchisor could no longer withdraw without being liable for damages.
The aspiring franchisee claims compensation on the basis of an unlawful act, consisting of – simplified – (i) the costs it had to incur in the context of the negotiation process (the negative contractual interest) and (ii) lost profit (the positive contract interest).
It has been established that the parties have negotiated the conclusion of a franchise agreement. The franchisor had stated at a very early stage that 9 steps would have to be taken in order to eventually become a franchisee. Step 5 is considered a provisional approval.
The aspiring franchisee goes through a number of steps, including training. Step 5, the provisional approval, is postponed. There does seem to be follow-up steps, but these appear to have been taken expressly at the urgent request of the prospective franchisee, while the franchisor has never indicated that it changed or intended to change the procedure in connection with this or that otherwise the importance of the provisional approval (step 5) was lost.
One of the next steps involved the location of the franchise location. The standard franchise agreement apparently assumed a branch in the Netherlands, while the prospective franchisee (also) proposed a branch location in Germany. The fact that the franchisor provided a standard franchise agreement does not mean that the franchisor was inclined to enter into deviating franchise agreements, which will be as well known in the relevant industry for large franchisors as the present one if it is known ex officio to the court, is common.
The shares in the franchisor are also taken over by another party. The new policy is that there will be no new franchisees. The franchisor also indicates that it no longer wishes to negotiate further with the prospective franchisee.
The court finds that the franchisor could not reasonably have given the prospective franchisee the impression at any time that she waived or wanted to waive the usual steps of the franchise process, in combination with the fact that there were actual deviations from this. The claim of the positive contract interest is rejected.
The court also sees no grounds for compensation of the negative contractual interest. After all, the fact that the procedure has continued, that the franchisee has been nominated to follow the training and that research has been done into suitable locations, has all happened, according to the witness statements and the documents submitted, because the aspiring franchisee wanted to speed up the procedure . This possibly led – the franchisor disputes this – to costs, while the franchisor was generally passive.
In negotiation processes between a franchisor and a prospective franchisee, mutual coordination and communication are of great importance in order to avoid disputes. Any reservations must be communicated at the earliest possible stage and must be repeated over and over again. In this way, mutual expectations can be managed and procedures such as these can be prevented.
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
Article Franchise+ – Franchisees enjoy the same protection as employees and commercial agents with regard to a non-competition clause – dated 7 May 2020 – mr. RCWL Albers
It often happens that, especially by franchisees, the validity of a post-contractual non-compete clause is considered too lightly.
The support agreement for the Retail sector in this Corona crisis – dated 15 April 2020 – mr. K. Bastian
On April 10, 2020, the Ministry of Economic Affairs, together with a number of landlords, retailers and banks, reached a support agreement.
Court rules that corona crisis does not constitute force majeure – dated April 10, 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
If payment cannot be made due to a decrease in income, then there is not always a force majeure situation.
Important information for directors of franchisees associations: Online meetings and decision-making in times of corona – dated April 10, 2020 – mr. J. Strong
Emergency law provisions for legally valid decisions without physically meeting within the association structure.
Unilateral amendment of the franchise agreement by the franchisor allowed? – dated April 7, 2020 – mr. K. Bastian
Is the franchisor allowed to implement certain announced changes/adaptations to the formula on the basis of the franchise agreement agreed between the parties?
Legal scientific publication: “Collective actions of franchisees” – dated April 2, 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
An article by mr. Alex Dolphin