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
The (in)validity of a post-contractual non-competition clause in a franchise agreement: analogy with employment law?
On 5 September 2017, the District Court of Gelderland, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2017:4565, rendered a judgment on, among other things, the question of whether Bruna, as a franchisor, could invoke the prohibition for a
Column Franchise+ – mr. J Sterk: “Court orders fast food chain to extend franchise agreement
The case is set to begin this year. For years, the franchisee has been refusing to sign the new franchise agreement that was offered with renewal, as it would lead to a deterioration of his legal position
Not a valid non-compete clause for franchisee
On 18 November 2016, the interim relief judge of the Central Netherlands District Court, ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2016:7754, rendered a judgment in the issue concerning whether the franchisee was held
Franchise & Law No. 5 – Acquisition Fraud and Franchising Act
The Acquisition Fraud Act came into effect on 1 July 2016. This includes amendments to Section 6:194 of the Dutch Civil Code.
Does a franchisee have to accept a new model franchise agreement?
On 31 March 2017, the District Court of Rotterdam, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2017:2457, ruled in interlocutory proceedings on the question whether franchisor Bram Ladage had complied with the franchise agreement with its franchisee.
Mandatory (market-based) purchase prices for franchisees
To what extent can a franchisor change agreements about the (market) purchase prices of the goods that the franchisees are obliged to purchase?