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
Judge: Protect franchisee against supermarket organization (Coop) as lessor
Does the franchisee need legal protection from supermarket franchisor Coop? The District Court of Rotterdam ruled on 9 February 2018, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2018:1151, that this is the case.
Acquisition fraud vs. error in franchise forecasting
Who has to prove that the franchisor's forecast is unsound? In principle, this is the franchisee. If the franchisee invokes the Acquisition Fraud Act, it may be that
Obligation to sell back at the end of the franchise agreement
Franchise agreements sometimes provide that the franchisee is required to sell back purchased assets at the end of the franchise agreement.
Supermarket letter – 20
Uncertain legal position of Emté franchisees
Position of franchisees in franchisor restructuring
Franchisees must be adequately and generously informed in advance by the franchisor about the content and consequences of (further) agreements...
Interview Franchise+ – mrs. J. Sterk and AW Dolphijn – “Reversal of burden of proof in forecasts approved by court” – February 2018
The new Acquisition Fraud Act indeed appears to be relevant for the franchise industry, according to this article from Franchise+. Alex Dolphijn of Ludwig & Van Dam assists a franchisee in a