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

Judge: Protect franchisee against supermarket organization (Coop) as lessor

Does the franchisee need legal protection from supermarket franchisor Coop? The District Court of Rotterdam ruled on 9 February 2018, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2018:1151, that this is the case.

Acquisition fraud vs. error in franchise forecasting

Who has to prove that the franchisor's forecast is unsound? In principle, this is the franchisee. If the franchisee invokes the Acquisition Fraud Act, it may be that

Obligation to sell back at the end of the franchise agreement

Franchise agreements sometimes provide that the franchisee is required to sell back purchased assets at the end of the franchise agreement.

Position of franchisees in franchisor restructuring

Franchisees must be adequately and generously informed in advance by the franchisor about the content and consequences of (further) agreements...

Interview Franchise+ – mrs. J. Sterk and AW Dolphijn – “Reversal of burden of proof in forecasts approved by court” – February 2018

The new Acquisition Fraud Act indeed appears to be relevant for the franchise industry, according to this article from Franchise+. Alex Dolphijn of Ludwig & Van Dam assists a franchisee in a

By Ludwig en van Dam|01-02-2018|Categories: Dispute settlement, Forecasting issues, Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , , |
Go to Top