Legal ban on unilaterally changing opening hours by the franchisor – July 13, 2020 – mr. J. Strong

By Published On: 13-07-2020Categories: Statements & current affairs

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

Compensation for reputational damage to the franchisor

A developer of a digital platform for a franchisor had provided a platform that any third party could access.

Sale of a franchise company due to a non-competition clause: False construction or not?

Franchisees who are unwilling or unable to continue with the franchise company experience whether or not the non-competition clause is valid or not.

Prohibited Franchise Agreements: Conduct of Franchisees Among Others

Forms of franchising that do not involve a vertical relationship between the franchisor on the one hand and the franchisees on the other may be prohibited.

A new franchisor against will and thanks

Mergers between franchise organizations are no longer an exception. Multivlaai/Limburgia, DA/DIO, Emté/Jumbo are recent examples of this.

Supreme Court: Code of Honor regarding franchising has no legal effect – dated September 25, 2018 – mr. AW Dolphin

Supreme Court: Code of honor on franchising has no legal force

By Alex Dolphijn|25-09-2018|Categories: Dispute settlement, Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , |
Go to Top