Legal ban on unilaterally changing opening hours by the franchisor – July 13, 2020 – mr. J. Strong
The State Secretary submitted a bill to the House of Representatives on 9 July 2020
Chamber that, in short, means that the retailer may not be bound
to unilateral changes to opening hours, during the term of
the agreement. The bill was prompted to ease the pressure
on the SME of, in particular, property owners, shopkeepers’ associations and the
chain stores to have to keep longer opening hours,
by unilateral amendments to the rental agreement.
It is remarkable that this is now frequently and explicitly stated in the explanatory memorandum
it is noted that this prohibition also applies to franchisors who
would unilaterally oblige franchisees to change their opening hours
change, invoking unilateral power to change the
franchise agreement. In the explanatory memorandum, the
rental agreement referred to in the same breath as the franchise agreement. If
the law is passed, the franchisee may decide that amended
to disregard opening hours, if not already mentioned in the
concrete agreements have been made about goods when entering into the franchise agreement.
The bill therefore offers a substantial addition to legal protection
of franchisees in relation to the recently passed Franchise Act.
Recently, a large portion of Domino’s franchisees are resisting
even without this law successfully against the franchisor
mandatory lunch opening. However, they could rely on it
lack of unilateral power of amendment. After the introduction of this law also enjoy
franchisees, who are bound by a unilateral agreement
amendment clause, this additional legal protection. Even if they are not renting.
For franchisors, it becomes even more important when entering into the
franchise agreement to make good agreements about the opening hours of
the franchise location. In view of the broad scope, this law is expected to
support base, almost certainly as flexible as the Franchise Act through it
parliament are piloted, although this is contrary to the Act
franchise has received little publicity attention.
mr. J. Sterk – franchise lawyer
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice. Want
you respond? Go to strong@ludwigvandam.nl
Other messages
Recommendations by the franchisor in general terms are permitted – dated March 6, 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The boundary between praise in general terms on the one hand and culpable deception and misrepresentation on the other remains a difficult issue.
Article De Nationale Franchise Gids – Know-how decisive for scope of application Franchise Act – dated 5 March 2020 – mr. RCWL Albers
It will have escaped the attention of few in the sector that on 10 February 2010 the legislative proposal for the Franchise Act was submitted to the House of Representatives.
Column Franchise+ – A conflict can be prevented, just communicate well – February 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
Formula changes are a fascinating topic. It is often the subject of conflicts, but those conflicts can be avoided.
Collection fraud results in franchisor 4 years in prison and a fine of € 7 million – dated 25 February 2020 – mr. JAJ Devilee
In a highly exceptional criminal case, the court recently sentenced one of the directors of a (former) franchisor to imprisonment and a fine.
Bill Franchise Act
Legislative proposal for the Franchise Act to the House of Representatives
Article De Nationale Franchise Gids – Bankrupt because the franchisor refused to sell the franchise company – dated January 28, 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
Can a franchisor refuse to sell a franchise business to a prospective buyer, even if it is a last resort for the franchisee?