Franchisee does not achieve operating forecast: the interim score.
Court of Roermond
Recently, the court in Roermond rendered an interim judgment between a franchisee and a franchisor, whereby the turnover was one third lower than budgeted by the franchisor. In general, the franchisor’s duty of care entails that the principles on which the franchisee starts his business must be correct.
This concerned the takeover of an existing establishment. The franchisor could therefore know very well what was feasible on the basis of historical turnover figures.
The parties litigate back and forth and submit no fewer than four reports. Franchise and franchisor have contributed so much that it seems inevitable that a lengthy and costly procedure seems unavoidable. The judge therefore aims for a hearing in which the parties can still settle if possible.
In the case of unsatisfactory financial forecasts, it is particularly important which assumptions are used. In other words, whether the underlying business location investigation was in order. If there was no location investigation, the franchisor would in principle lose its first line. Now that the parties are submitting contradictory reports, it is up to the court to make a decision if the hopeful settlement is not realised. It would be good if the parties allowed jurisprudence with regard to unrealized forecasts to lead to a final solution in the short term, so that further litigation is avoided. To be continued!
Mr Th.R. Ludwig – Franchise attorney
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice Would you like to respond? Mail to ludwig@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.