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
Deception in recruiting a franchisee?
A ruling on whether the franchisor had made a misrepresentation when recruiting a franchisee.
Franchisor liable for forecasts from third parties – dated March 6, 2019 – mr. M. Munnik
According to settled case law, a franchisor acts unlawfully towards its franchisee when a franchisor independently conducts research in a careless manner and as a result...
The (hard) franchise agreement and duty of care qualified – WPNR 7226 (2019)
The government intends to include a legal regulation on franchising in the Civil Code to protect the weak position of the franchisee.
The municipality must allow temporary Albert Heijn
On 7 February 2019, the District Court of Noord-Holland ruled on whether the municipality should allow a temporary Albert Heijn
Franchisors may no longer impose changes to store hours – February 12, 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
At the end of 2018, a draft of the “Freedom of Choice for Retailers (Opening Hours) Act” was presented.
When does a franchisor go too far when recruiting franchisees?
The judgment of the Court of Appeal of Arnhem-Leeuwarden on 5 February 2019 dealt with whether the franchisor had acted impermissibly when recruiting the franchisees.