Late notification that no franchise agreement will be concluded
On 11 April 2017, the Court of Appeal of Amsterdam-Leeuwarden, EQLI:NL:GHARL:2017:3104, not only assessed the question of whether the termination of negotiations on a franchise agreement to be concluded was unlawful, but also whether the franchisor was sufficiently has broken down.
In the first instance, the District Court of Gelderland ruled on 6 May 2015, EQLI:NL:RBGEL:2015:4708, that it was clear in advance to the aspiring franchisee that 9 steps would have to be completed in order to eventually become a franchisee. See my earlier comment on that statement here.
While going through the necessary steps, the shares in the franchisor are taken over by another party. The new policy is that no new franchisees will be recruited. Going through the next steps to reach a franchise agreement is therefore terminated by the franchisor. The court ruled in favor of the franchisor. The Court of Appeal follows that view of the District Court.
However, the court ruled that the subject of the dispute is not only the termination of the franchise agreement negotiations, but that other conduct during the negotiations could also be unlawful. The franchisee’s contention is that the franchisor must have known shortly after acquiring its stock that there was a new policy not to hire any more new franchisees. Nevertheless, the aspiring franchisee would only be made clear to the aspiring franchisee after a considerable period of time that it would not come to a franchise agreement. According to the court, the aspiring franchisee has been kept on the line for too long, which is contrary to social decency. The Court of Appeal refers the case to a damage assessment procedure to determine the extent of the damage.
This ruling shows that although breaking off negotiations may be justified, the way in which this breaking off is implemented may be contrary to social decency.
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice. Do you want to respond? Go to dolphijn@ludwigvandam.nl .
Other messages
Article Franchise+ – “Immediate information obligations of franchisors upon operation of the Franchise Act” – mr. AW Dolphijn – dated June 25, 2020
As soon as the Franchise Act enters into force, this will have an immediate effect on franchise agreements that already exist. The question is whether the information flows are set up optimally from a legal point of view.
Senate will adopt Franchise Act – dated 24 June 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The House of Representatives had unanimously adopted the proposal to introduce the Franchise Act on 16 June 2020
Franchise Act passed by the House of Representatives – dated 16 June 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Franchise Act was adopted by the House of Representatives on 16 June 2020.
Sandd franchisees find satisfaction in nullifying Sandd and PostNL merger – dated 12 June 2020
The franchisees of mail delivery company Sandd went to court in November, assisted by Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten. Court of Rotterdam rules on takeover by PostNL.
Plenary debate dated June 9, 2020 in the Lower House of the Franchise Act – dated June 10, 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
On 9 June 2020, the legislative proposal for the Franchise Act was discussed in plenary in the House of Representatives. An amendment and a motion have been tabled.
Franchising is “a bottleneck in tackling healthcare fraud” – dated 10 June 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
According to the various supervisory authorities in the healthcare sector, franchise constructions can be seen as a non-transparent business construction in which the supervision of professional and