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
Column Franchise+ – mr. Th.R. Ludwig: “Delivery stop by franchisor again not allowed”
Once again, the president in preliminary relief proceedings ruled on the question whether a franchisor's supply stop against the franchisee was permitted, with the franchisee paying a substantial
The manager (employee) who becomes a franchisee – fictitious employment?
On 14 December 2016, the subdistrict court judge of the District Court of Noord-Holland, ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2016:11031 (Employee/Espresso Lounge), considered the situation in which an employee
The Supreme Court sets strict requirements for franchise forecasts
A ruling by the Supreme Court on Friday casts a new light on the provision of profit and turnover forecasts to aspiring franchisees.
Infringement of exclusive service area by franchisor in connection with formula change dated February 27, 2017
On 30 January 2017, the provisional relief judge of the District Court of Noord-Holland, ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2017:688 (Intertoys/franchisee), was asked how to deal with the
Forecasts at startup franchise formula
The Amsterdam Court of Appeal ruled on 14 February 2017, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:455 (Tot Straks/franchisee) on the question whether the franchisor had provided an unsatisfactory prognosis and whether the
Mandatory transfer of franchise business to franchisor?
On January 23, 2017, the District Court of Amsterdam, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2017:412 (CoffeeCompany/Dam Spirit BV) rendered a judgment on the question whether a franchisee upon termination of the cooperation