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
Agreements Related to the Franchise Agreement
On 31 October 2017, the Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal issued similar judgments for nineteen franchisees (ECLI:NL:GHARL:2017:9453 through ECLI:NL:GHARL:2017:9472).
Column Franchise+ – mr. J. Sterk – “Franchisee does body check better than franchise check”
A gym embarks on a franchise concept that offers “Body Checks” and discounts to (potential) members in collaboration with health insurers.
Seminar Mrs. J. Sterk and M. Munnik – Thursday, November 2, 2017: “Important legal developments for franchisors”
Attorneys Jeroen Sterk and Maaike Munnik of Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten will update you on the status of and developments surrounding the Dutch Franchise Code and the Acquisition Fraude Act.
Goodwill at end of franchise agreement
In a case before the Amsterdam Court of Appeal on 26 September 2017, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:3900 (Seal & Go), a franchisee claimed compensation for goodwill (ex Article 7:308 of the Dutch Civil Code) after the
Article in Entrance: “Resignation”
Fire an employee who is not performing well? The subdistrict court is strict. If you, as an employer, cannot demonstrate that you have done everything yourself to make the person function better, it will be
Cost price that is too high as a hidden franchise fee
An interlocutory judgment of the District Court of The Hague dated 30 August 2017, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2017:10597 (Happy Nurse) shows that the court has considered the question whether the