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
Column Franchise+ – “Flashing quarrels about franchise fee must stop”
Lately, it has also hit the biggest franchise organizations in the Netherlands. At the formulas of Albert Heijn, HEMA, Etos, Bruna and Olympia, for example, there was and will be a lot
Circumvent post non-compete clause in franchising
On 3 April 2018, the Court of Appeal of Arnhem-Leeuwarden, ECLI:NL:GHARL:2018:3128, overturned an interim injunction of the District Court of Gelderland on competitive activities.
Column Franchise+ – “Prohibition of sales via internet platforms in franchise agreement exempt from cartel prohibition”
At the end of last year, Thuisbezorgd.nl incurred the wrath of many meal delivery companies by announcing another rate increase. The standard rate of Thuisbezorgd.nl thus reached a
Column Franchise+ – Franchisor acts unlawfully by providing a forecast through a third party
Disputes about forecasts between franchisor and franchisee remain a hot topic in franchising. After the Street-One judgment, it seems that franchisors feel safe
Column Franchise+ – Outsourcing forecasting to an administrative office does not benefit the franchisor
Disputes about forecasts between franchisor and franchisee remain a hot topic in franchising. After the Street-One judgment, it seems that franchisors feel safe
Outsourcing prognosis to an administrative office does not benefit the franchisor
Disputes about forecasts between franchisor and franchisee remain a hot topic in franchising.