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
Keep your cool with franchise agreement
Keep your cool with franchise agreement
Purchase obligation and competitive prices
On 9 September 2015, the District Court of the Northern Netherlands rendered a judgment on the question of whether a franchisor used market-based prices in the case of an exclusive purchase obligation.
The franchisor must demonstrate the correctness of the prognosis
The franchisor must demonstrate the correctness of the prognosis
Rules of the game for internet sales
On 21 July 2015, the 's-Hertogenbosch Court of Appeal ruled in a case involving a franchise agreement for a hairdressing supplies company.
Reasonable term for terminating the continuing performance contract
Reasonable term for terminating the continuing performance contract
The importance of interest in a non-compete clause
The importance of “interest” in a non-compete clause