Franchisor liable for errors made by a franchisee? – mr. AW Dolphijn – dated November 23, 2020

By Published On: 23-11-2020Categories: Statements & current affairs

A franchise organization of mortgage brokers requested the court to declare that the franchisor is not liable for the fact that a franchisee has committed a serious error, or at least committed fraud with a customer. The District Court of Amsterdam ruled in this case on November 4, 2020, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2020:5408.

Mortgage brokers are supervised by the AFM and require a licence. The franchisor is the central license holder in this matter and has a collective license (Section 2:105 Wft). The individual franchisees then act under the responsibility of the franchisor. However, the franchisor stated that this does not mean that the franchisor is then in all cases liable for errors made by the franchisee.

The court rules that the franchisor can be liable, in addition to the franchisee, for an error on the part of the franchisee if that error is caused by the affiliated company not complying with the aforementioned licensing obligations and requirements. For example, if a franchisee does not comply with the licensing requirements and third parties suffer damage as a result, this can lead to liability of the franchisor towards that third party.

In this case, the franchisor’s claim to establish that the franchisor was not liable was formulated too broadly.

This ruling provides more guidance on the extent to which a franchisor under a collective license could be liable for errors and fraud by franchisees.

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

Advisory Board on Regulatory Pressure (ATR) advises State Secretary Keijzer about the Franchise Act

In short, it is first advised to actively inform franchisors and franchisees about this amendment to the law.

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).

By Remy Albers|28-01-2019|Categories: Dispute settlement, Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , |

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?

Go to Top