Incorrect forecasts: no dissolution of the franchise agreement
Franchise lawyer, franchise agreement, forecast
On 6 January 2010, the preliminary relief judge of the District Court in The Hague rendered a judgment that could have major consequences for the franchise practice. Based on this judgment, it will become considerably more difficult for a franchisor to terminate a franchise agreement with a franchisee if the franchisor previously, at the time of entering into the franchise agreement, provided unsatisfactory forecasts to this franchisee.
A dissolution of an agreement can only take place if various elements are met, such as, in certain cases, default on the part of the other party. If a franchisor has previously provided an unsatisfactory forecast to a franchisee, the franchisor will automatically be in default by operation of law because it commits an unlawful act against the franchisee. As a result, the franchisee will not in turn be in default, so that the franchisor cannot pronounce the dissolution as a result.
This is important for the legal development of the case law in the area of franchising, because it has never before been so clearly established by a court that, due to the franchisor’s automatic default, a dissolution invoked by the franchisor is ineffective. In practice, this will mean that franchisees who have been provided with unsatisfactory forecasts by their franchisee at the time of concluding the franchise agreement can more easily defend themselves against an attempt to dissolve the franchise agreement by the same franchisor.
Franchisors are therefore – also for this reason – well advised to ensure that all forecasts they provide to potential franchisees are sound. Franchisees – in turn – should be aware of the implications of the foregoing should they find themselves in such a situation.
Ludwig & Van Dam franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice
Other messages
Infringement of exclusive service area by franchisor in connection with formula change dated February 27, 2017
On 30 January 2017, the provisional relief judge of the District Court of Noord-Holland, ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2017:688 (Intertoys/franchisee), was asked how to deal with the
Forecasts at startup franchise formula
The Amsterdam Court of Appeal ruled on 14 February 2017, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:455 (Tot Straks/franchisee) on the question whether the franchisor had provided an unsatisfactory prognosis and whether the
Mandatory transfer of franchise business to franchisor?
On January 23, 2017, the District Court of Amsterdam, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2017:412 (CoffeeCompany/Dam Spirit BV) rendered a judgment on the question whether a franchisee upon termination of the cooperation
Transfer customer data to franchisor
In its judgment of 10 January 2017, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:68 (OnlineAccountants.nl), the Amsterdam Court ruled, among other things, on the question of how customer data should be transferred.
Franchise Closing Sale – Who Gets the Sale Proceeds?
The judgment of the District Court of the Northern Netherlands dated 12 October 2016, ECLI:NL:RBNNE:2016:5061 (Administrator/Expert Group and Rabobank), focused on the question whether the franchisor, together with the bank,
Column Franchise+ – mr. Th.R. Ludwig: “Judge: franchisor’s duty of care comparable to that of a bank”
Various judgments in 2016 made it clear how high the standard of care for a franchisor towards its franchisees is.