Franchisees: do not conclude arbitration clauses, but do take out legal expenses insurance
In conflicts between franchisor and franchisee, it often happens that the parties do not fight with equal arms. This may be due, among other things, to the fact that the franchise agreement contains an arbitration clause. Arbitrators must be paid for by the parties. The costs of such a procedure can therefore turn out to be extremely high. In practice, this more than once means that the franchisee is unable to litigate against the franchisor, who is generally better able to finance arbitrators. Consequence: the franchisee has no possibility to start arbitration proceedings or sometimes even to defend himself. Arbitral clauses in franchise agreements therefore entail legal inequality. There is then no question of equality of arms, one of the basic principles in a civilized constitutional state.
In addition, it is more than once problematic for a franchisee to obtain legal assistance when this is indicated. If the franchisee needs to hire a lawyer, it is not always easy to pay this service provider. This problem can be overcome if the franchisee insures himself of legal assistance when entering into the franchise agreement by taking out legal assistance insurance. This prevents the franchisee from being unable to obtain adequate legal assistance on financial grounds.
Ludwig & Van Dam franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice
Other messages
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?
Supermarket letter – 24
Draft Bill Law Franchise