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
Column Franchise + – mr. Th.R. Ludwig: “Towards strict liability”
The Supreme Court recently ruled in a prognosis issue.
Article in Entrance: “Rentals”
“The landlord increased the prices of the property every year, but he hasn't done this for 2 years, maybe he forgets. Can he still claim an overdue amount later?”
No valid appeal to non-compete clause in franchising
On 28 February 2017, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2017:1469, the provisional relief judge of the District Court of Gelderland ruled on whether a franchisee could be bound by a non-compete clause.
Structurally unsound revenue forecasts from the franchisor
On 15 March 2017, the District Court of Limburg ruled in eight similar judgments (including ECLI:NL:RBLIM:2017:2344) on the franchise agreements of various franchisees of the P3 franchise formula.
Franchisee obliged to cooperate with formula change?
On 24 March 2017, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2017:1860, the preliminary relief judge of the Amsterdam District Court once again considered the issue in which Intertoys wishes to convert Bart Smit's stores
Delivery stop by franchisor not allowed
On 9 February 2017, the preliminary relief judge of the District Court of Gelderland, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2017:1372, ruled that a franchisor had not fulfilled its obligation to supply the franchisee