Franchise contract not signed? Still bound…
District Court of the Northern Netherlands
Recently, the court in the Northern Netherlands ruled on the question of the status of the franchise relationship between franchisee and franchisor on the basis of the factual cooperation without the franchise agreement having been signed. The court considers the following. It is relevant that the franchisee, when entering into the franchise relationship, has not expressed any objections to the content of the franchise agreement submitted. Nor has it emerged that the franchisee would have set as a suspensory condition that a franchise agreement would only have existed if both the franchisee and the franchisor had actually signed the franchise agreement. If it then turns out that the franchisee will in fact operate the store in accordance with the provisions of the franchise agreement, the court finds that the franchisee in question has all in all tacitly accepted the franchise agreement and that he has therefore concluded a full franchise contract – entirely in accordance the contents of the franchise agreement submitted to the franchisee. The fact that the franchise contract was sent to the franchisee by the franchisor much later, and even the fact that the franchisee did not want to sign the franchise contract, does not change this.
The parties are therefore advised, in order to avoid any misunderstanding, to actually sign the franchise agreement well before the start of the actual cooperation. Indeed, if both the franchisee and the franchisor act in accordance with the content of the franchise agreement, both parties, despite the lack of signature, are fully bound by the written document. An interesting question is whether the court’s position can be extended to the extent that the former franchisee is also bound by the post-contractual non-competition clause. If this were the case, then provisions that would take effect after the end of the franchise agreement in signed contracts would also have far-reaching consequences for both the franchisee and the franchisor.
Mr Th.R. Ludwig – Franchise lawyer
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys,franchise legal advice. Do you want to respond? Mail to vandam@ludwigvandam.nl
Other messages
No non-compete violation by franchisee – mr. AW Dolphijn – dated February 4, 2021
On 20 January 2021, the District Court of Rotterdam, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2021:657, ...
(Partially) similar activities not in conflict with non-compete clause – mr. RCWL Albers – dated February 4, 2021
In recent proceedings, two (former) franchisees were sued by their ...
Court issues groundbreaking verdict: Rent reduction in substantive proceedings for catering operators as a result of the lockdown – mr. C. Damen – dated February 1, 2021
Last Wednesday, a controversial ruling was made and published for ...
Article Franchise+ -The risks of a minimum turnover requirement in the franchise agreement for the franchisor
Including a minimum turnover to be achieved in the franchise ...
Article The National Franchise Guide: “Minimum turnover as a forecast”
For many years now, the responsibility and liability of the ...
Article Franchise+ – “Franchise statistics 2019: decline trend continues, caused by the Franchise Act?”- mr. J. Sterk, mr. M. Munnik and mr. JAJ Devilee
Since 2007, Ludwig & Van Dam attorneys have been periodically ...