Legal qualification of cooperation
In a judgment of 15 September 2015 (ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2015:3847), the Amsterdam Court of Appeal clarified that the legal definition of a collaboration is leading for the question of how the collaboration can be legally qualified. In this case, the question was whether there was an agency agreement. This is important because the law contains a number of mandatory statutory provisions for agency agreements, including the manner in which the collaboration is terminated and the agent’s right to a client fee.
The Court of Appeal considers that an agency agreement (according to the definition given in Article 7:428 of the Dutch Civil Code) is an agreement in which one party (the principal) instructs the other party (the commercial agent) to mediate against remuneration for a definite or indefinite period of time in the conclusion of agreements between the principal and clients without being subordinate to the principal. The mere fact that purchase agreements were concluded between the principal and third parties through the involvement of one party (referred to by him as intermediation) does not in itself imply that the agreement between the parties must be regarded as an agency agreement. After all, it is not characteristic of an agency agreement that the contractor mediates in the conclusion of agreements between its client and a third party, but precisely that the contractor is in principle only remunerated (by means of receiving commission) if and insofar as his involvement, agreements between the principal and third parties are concluded.
Regardless of the name of a cooperation between two trading partners, the legal definitions will be the starting point. Designations such as dealer agreement, partner agreement, franchise agreement, affiliation agreement, reseller agreement, cooperation agreement, distribution agreement, etc., legal qualification remains paramount.
mr. AW Dolphijn – Franchise lawyer
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice. Do you want to respond? Mail to dolphijn@ludwigvandam.nl
Other messages
Supermarket Newsletter – 27
Supermarket Newsletter No. 27
Bankrupt because the franchisor refused to sell the franchise company – dated January 28, 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The District Court of The Hague has dealt with a request from a franchisor to declare a franchisee bankrupt.
Prescribed shop fitting – dated January 28, 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Midden-Nederland District Court has ruled on whether a franchisee is obliged to carry the shop fittings prescribed by the franchisor.
Ludwig & Van Dam attorneys summon Sandd and PostNL on behalf of the Sandd franchisees – dated 9 January 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Association of Franchisees of Sandd (VFS) has today summoned Sandd and PostNL before the court in Arnhem. The VFS believes that Sandd and PostNL are letting the franchisees down hard.
Article The National Franchise Guide: “Why joint and several liability, for example, next to private?” – dated 7 January 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
Franchisees are often asked to co-sign the franchise agreement in addition to their franchise, for example. Sometimes franchisees refuse to do so and the franchise agreement is not signed.
Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten assists Sandd franchisees: Franchisees Sandd challenge postal monopoly in court – dated 12 November 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Association of Franchisees of Sandd (VFS) is challenging the decision of State Secretary Mona Keijzer to approve the postal merger between PostNL and Sandd before the court in Rotterdam.