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
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.