In a judgment of the Court of Appeal of ‘s-Hertogenbosch of 11 July 2017, ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2017:3153, it was discussed that franchisees accused the franchisor’s accountant of being liable for an unsatisfactory forecast.

The franchisor’s accountant had drawn up an investment budget on behalf of the franchisees, which provided a forecast of the expected financial results of operating a franchise establishment under the franchisor’s formula. The allegations related to the presence of a conflicting interest of the accountant, but also to some omissions in the prognosis. These omissions related, among other things, to the omission of negative effects, while positive effects were included. 

The court has appointed an expert. The expert has come to the conclusion that the prognosis is understandable and has been drawn up in accordance with the usual working method. The expert also pointed out that differences between the forecast and the actual figures are limited. Furthermore, the expert pointed out some shortcomings of the fact that the conflict of interest has not been recorded and some shortcomings are not such that the prognosis would be unreliable. 

In line with this, the Court of Appeal ruled that the accountant acted as may be expected from a reasonable acting and reasonably competent accountant.

The question of whether the prognosis is sound is assessed by the Court of Appeal on the basis of the standard for professional liability. Liability of a franchisor for a faulty forecast could also be assessed by whether the franchisor acted as would be expected of a reasonable and reasonably competent franchisor in recruiting franchisees. 

mr. AW Dolphijn – Franchise lawyer 

Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice. Do you want to respond? Go to dolphijn@ludwigvandam.nl .

Other messages

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.

By Alex Dolphijn|09-01-2020|Categories: Statements & current affairs|

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.

By Alex Dolphijn|12-11-2019|Categories: Statements & current affairs|Tags: , |

Franchisee trapped by non-compete clause? – dated October 21, 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin

The District Court of East Brabant has ruled that a franchisee was still bound by the non-competition clause in the event of premature termination of the franchise agreement.

Go to Top