Incorrect prognosis due to lack of location research
On 21 March 2018, the District Court of The Hague ruled, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2018:3348, that a franchisor’s forecast was unsound, as a result of which the franchisee had erred and the franchisor had acted unlawfully.
Contrary to what was stated in the franchise agreement, the franchisor had not conducted a location survey. Nor had the franchisor conducted any research among its own franchisees. The franchisor has acknowledged that it only used historical turnover and profit data (annual figures) of two stores when drawing up the forecasts. Furthermore, the franchisor had not sufficiently disputed that the aforementioned two stores differed substantially in terms of retail space, location and product range.
The predictive value of (merely) historical turnover and profit data is relative, especially now that the franchisor determines both the purchase prices and the sales prices of its franchisees in accordance with its franchise formula, according to the court.
The operating results turn out to be considerably lower than forecast. The court considers that the franchisor must, in principle, guarantee the soundness of the operating forecasts (prepared by itself) that it had provided to the franchisee. After all, the franchisee could assume that it could rely on the information provided by the franchisor, because a large franchisor, such as in the present case, with more than a hundred franchised pet specialty shops in the Netherlands, can be pre-eminently considered to be aware of all market conditions relevant to the potential turnover of the VOF, and on the basis thereof be able to make realistic estimates of the turnover opportunities arising from those circumstances.
On the basis of the foregoing, the court is therefore of the opinion that the operating forecasts drawn up by the franchisor are unsound and that the franchise agreement was concluded under the influence of error as a result of errors in the operating forecast provided by the franchisor.
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
Column Franchise+ – mr. J. Sterk – “Franchisee does body check better than franchise check”
A gym embarks on a franchise concept that offers “Body Checks” and discounts to (potential) members in collaboration with health insurers.
Seminar Mrs. J. Sterk and M. Munnik – Thursday, November 2, 2017: “Important legal developments for franchisors”
Attorneys Jeroen Sterk and Maaike Munnik of Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten will update you on the status of and developments surrounding the Dutch Franchise Code and the Acquisition Fraude Act.
Goodwill at end of franchise agreement
In a case before the Amsterdam Court of Appeal on 26 September 2017, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:3900 (Seal & Go), a franchisee claimed compensation for goodwill (ex Article 7:308 of the Dutch Civil Code) after the
Article in Entrance: “Resignation”
Fire an employee who is not performing well? The subdistrict court is strict. If you, as an employer, cannot demonstrate that you have done everything yourself to make the person function better, it will be
Cost price that is too high as a hidden franchise fee
An interlocutory judgment of the District Court of The Hague dated 30 August 2017, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2017:10597 (Happy Nurse) shows that the court has considered the question whether the
Supermarket letter – 19
Coop liability for damages due to non-performance towards the franchisee