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
Advisory Board on Regulatory Pressure (ATR) advises State Secretary Keijzer about the Franchise Act
In short, it is first advised to actively inform franchisors and franchisees about this amendment to the law.
Post non-competition ban on services and sales franchise
When a franchise agreement ends, many franchisees encounter a prohibition in the franchise agreement to perform similar work for a period of time thereafter
The concept of the Franchise Act: impact for franchisors and franchisees – dated February 5, 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten believes that if the draft of the Franchise Act actually becomes law, a lot will change for franchisors and franchisees.
Buy franchise business and the laid off sick employee from 7 years ago
The question is whether a Bruna franchisee, when selling the franchise company to Bruna, should have stated that seven years ago an employee had left employment sick.
Court prohibits Domino’s unilateral area reduction when extending franchise agreements – dated January 28, 2019 – mr. RCWL Albers
On January 9, 2019, the District Court of Rotterdam rendered a judgment in a lawsuit initiated by the Association of Domino's Pizza Franchisees and all its members (almost all Domino's franchisees).
Lien of the franchisee
Can a prospective franchisee invoke a right of retention to reclaim an entry fee if a franchise agreement is not concluded after the pre-agreement has been concluded?