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. The franchise agreements are no longer fulfilled in the meantime, with all the dramatic consequences that entails. The VFS asks the court to rule that Sandd is in default and that both Sandd and PostNL are responsible for the damage suffered by the franchisees as a result.
The franchisees are systematically ignored.
Sandd and PostNL had been planning to join forces for some time. From the moment the franchisees became familiar with this, they have always asked what their position would be. The VFS franchisees serve more than 20% of Sandd’s network. These SME companies employ approximately three thousand mail deliverers and approximately four hundred and fifty employees.
When State Secretary Mona Keijzer approved the merger, the franchisees were therefore surprised that their position had not been taken into account. They are therefore challenging the conditions of the merger license at the Rotterdam District Court. That procedure is still ongoing. See the press release of November 12, 2019.
After the merger license, the franchisees were not informed until November 5 that the franchise activities will stop completely at the beginning of 2020. There was no solution for the franchisees at that time. Although the franchisees at Sandd and PostNL kept knocking afterwards, there is still no concrete plan. Chairman Mario de Koning of the VFS: “State Secretary Mona Keijzer had completely disregarded the franchisees in the merger permit, while it is precisely with the proposed Franchise Act that she wants to strengthen the position of franchisees against franchisors. Now that Sandd and PostNL are also ignoring the interests of the franchisees, the franchisees, including their employees, are left out in the cold.”
The VFS has the impression that it is trying to play the franchisees off against each other. De Koning: “Divide and conquer. The VFS has proposed principles for determining the damage. Sandd wants to circumvent those basic principles by forcing other basic principles through the individual franchisees. You put pressure on a franchisee to sign a contract with different principles for determining damages. The rest will follow automatically. We want to prevent that.”
Now that the position of the franchisees is not taken seriously, the franchisees are forced to go to court. They want recognition of Sandd’s default and PostNL’s unlawful actions, in order to arrive at an adequate solution.
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
Does a franchisee have to accept a new model franchise agreement?
On 31 March 2017, the District Court of Rotterdam, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2017:2457, ruled in interlocutory proceedings on the question whether franchisor Bram Ladage had complied with the franchise agreement with its franchisee.
Mandatory (market-based) purchase prices for franchisees
To what extent can a franchisor change agreements about the (market) purchase prices of the goods that the franchisees are obliged to purchase?
Director’s liability of a franchisee after failing to rely on an unsound prognosis.
On 11 July 2017, the Court of Appeal of 's-Hertogenbosch made a decision on whether the franchisor could successfully sue the director of a BV for non-compliance with the
Liability accountant for prepared prognosis?
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
How far does the bank’s duty of care extend?
Some time ago the question was raised in case law what the position of the bank is in the triangular relationship franchisor – bank – franchisee.
Burden of proof reversal in forecasting as misleading advertising?
In an interlocutory judgment of 15 June 2017, the District Court of Zeeland-West-Brabant, ECLI:NL:RBZWB:2017:3833, ruled on a claim for (among other things) suspension of the non-compete clause.