Insured and well
Occasionally, a franchise agreement contains a clause that obliges the franchisee to take out legal expenses insurance. Taken in itself, the idea arises that this clause may be too far-reaching in the context of the legal and economic independence of the franchisee. In addition, it is up to the franchisee himself whether or not he is insured in case he needs to take out legal assistance insurance. Nevertheless, it is not unwise to include such a clause in the franchise agreement, as this is permitted in the context of independence or if it contributes to an increased risk with regard to a disguised employer/employee relationship (fictitious employment). To ensure this, prior approval must be requested from the relevant implementing body. Assuming that the clause is in order, such a clause protects the franchisee in bad weather. It should be expressly considered that the vast majority of cases in which the franchisee has to rely on legal assistance have nothing to do with the relationship with the franchisor at all. Even in such situations, however, adequate legal assistance insurance offers a guarantee for all parties involved. Statistically, however, this rarely occurs in practice, in relation to all other legal problems that can happen to a franchisee. This includes, for example, labor disputes with staff, rental problems, or, for example, problems with the municipality in connection with permits, etc. A good franchisor anticipates for the benefit of its franchisees by informing them that they can insure themselves for most forms of legal assistance. It goes without saying that the quality of that legal assistance and therefore of the legal expenses insurer is of great importance. Not only should the premium be considered, but above all the policy conditions.
Incidentally, it should be noted that a franchisor can insure itself against most disputes that may befall it. Here too, however, it is of eminent importance that a careful inventory is made before one is insured, under which conditions and whether a (specialised) lawyer can handle the matter if necessary.
Ludwig & Van Dam franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice
Other messages
Which court for a rental and franchise agreement?
Which court is competent to rule on a related rental and franchise agreement?
Interview Franchise+ – mrs. J. Sterk and AW Dolphijn – “Reversal burden of proof in forecasts honored by court”
The new Acquisition Fraud Act indeed appears to be relevant for the franchise industry, according to this article from Franchise+.
Franchisor convicted under the Acquisition Fraud Act
For the first time, a court has ruled, with reference to the Acquisition Fraud Act, that if a franchisee claims that the franchisor has presented an unsatisfactory prognosis
Agreements Related to the Franchise Agreement
On 31 October 2017, the Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal issued similar judgments for nineteen franchisees (ECLI:NL:GHARL:2017:9453 through ECLI:NL:GHARL:2017:9472).
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.