Franchisee avoids joint and several liability in private
In a judgment of 28 March 2018, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2018:2913, the District Court of Rotterdam ruled on the meaning of the clause in the franchise agreement stipulating that it was entered into “acting in private or through the private company Semath management BV, collectively hereinafter referred to as Franchise Taker (FN)”.
The court finds that when the franchise agreement was signed, the person-relatedness was in any case discussed. In view of this, as well as in view of the professional level of both parties, it would have been for the franchisee, if he did not wish to be personally financially responsible in any way, to request an exception to the joint party designation in the financial determination . This applies all the more now that the payment of a sum of money is a divisible obligation.
Although, in view of the above, the franchisee was also a private party to the franchise agreement, this does not mean that there is also joint and several liability. The main legal rule is that everyone is bound for half, unless otherwise agreed. If it wished to assume joint and several liability, it would have been for the franchisor to express this clearly, precisely because this exception to the rule has far-reaching consequences and the franchisor was assisted by a lawyer.
The result is that the franchisee is not personally liable for the debt to the franchisor, but is liable for half. The other half is for Semath management BV, of which the franchisee is the owner.
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
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.
Supermarket letter – 26
Supermarket Newsletter No. 26