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
The accidental incidental use of a brand by the former franchisee
The accidental incidental use of a brand by the former franchisee
Interview Mr. J. Sterk in Foodmagazine about the Dutch Franchise Code: “Power relations are partly restored.”
Interview Mr. J. Sterk in Foodmagazine about the Dutch Franchise Code: "Power relations are partly restored."
Bart’s Retail ruled in favor of subdistrict court judge in Nijmegen – 11 March 2016 – mr. T. Meijer
Bart's Retail ruled in favor of subdistrict court judge in Nijmegen
Interview Mr. J. Sterk in Distrifood – “Cheers about Dutch Franchise Code premature” – February 27, 2016
Interview Mr. J. Sterk in Distrifood - "Cheers about Dutch Franchise Code premature"
Newsletter Definitive Dutch Franchise Code – 24 February 2016 – DLvan Dam
Newsletter final Dutch Franchise Code – DLvan Dam
Minister Kamp explores legal anchoring Franchise Code – 17 February 2016
Minister Kamp is exploring the legal anchoring of the Franchise Code