Franchisor liable for franchisee error
On 17 March 2021, the Midden-Nederland District Court ruled, ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2021:1351, that a franchisor could be held liable for an alleged error by a franchisee.
A franchisee of a housing brokerage formula had contact with a home owner. The franchisee would mediate in the rental of the home. To this end, they concluded a contract for services. However, the homeowner was not satisfied with the performance of the assignment and held the franchisor liable for this. The franchisor (and not the franchisee) was then subpoenaed.
The franchisor takes the position that the home owner has not turned to the right party. The franchisor has never operated a rental office at the stated office address, while the franchisee was located there with his sole proprietorship. According to the franchisor, the home owner therefore had an agreement with that franchisee. The franchisee in question had several employees. An employee of the franchisee has also had frequent contact with the home owner. According to the franchisee, the confusion arose because the employee concerned used the old stock of the franchisor’s stationery. The lease is printed on that old stationery and in a model that names the franchisor. The name of the franchisee’s sole proprietorship does not appear anywhere.
The court ruled that the franchisor (and, incidentally, also the franchisee) must ensure that it is clear to a third party which company it is dealing with. To this end, the court considers, among other things, that the franchisor or the franchisee has opted to use old stationery with the designation of the franchisor on it. This is not a circumstance that can be invoked against the homeowner. The franchisor could have ensured that such old stationery was no longer available. In addition, it has not been alleged or shown that the franchisor gave instructions to the franchisee regarding the use or non-use of stationery. The court therefore assumes that the franchisor is the contracting party and that the homeowner has summoned the correct party.
The court also considers that there was no shortcoming in the assignment of the home owner, so that the franchisor was not liable. However, it is important that under certain circumstances the franchisor can be held accountable for the conduct of the franchisee towards third parties.
Ludwig & Van Dam lawyers, franchise legal advice.
Do you want to respond? Then email 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).
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?