Nice weather as an excuse?

Legal discussions are regularly held about the question of whether disappointing visitor numbers in a (new) shopping center can be blamed on the lessor. Recently some statements have been made in this regard. These statements are important because estimates of visitor numbers may form part of forecasts as made available to the franchisee by the franchisor. The culpability can therefore extend to the franchisor and is therefore not limited to the operator of the shopping centre.
Whether disappointing visitor numbers in a (new) shopping center can be blamed depends very much on the facts and circumstances of the case. In concrete terms, this means that the lessor and/or the franchisor may indeed be liable if the figures presented turned out to be unrealistic afterwards.

An independent research obligation of the prospective tenant/franchisee is of course important in this respect. As a professional counterparty, the necessary may be expected of him in this regard. However, if a shopping center provides very clear figures that are also decisive for entering into the final rental agreement, then this can indeed be decisive. It is also important to check to what extent the data of the shopping center has been taken into account in the final forecast and to what extent these data are decisive for any deviations found. In this context, a professional attitude from the franchisor may be expected. Generalities such as economic malaise or a buyers’ strike because of the warm weather are therefore not valid.

Ludwig & Van Dam franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice

Other messages

Franchise & Law No. 5 – Acquisition Fraud and Franchising Act

The Acquisition Fraud Act came into effect on 1 July 2016. This includes amendments to Section 6:194 of the Dutch Civil Code.

By Ludwig en van Dam|10-08-2017|Categories: Dispute settlement, Forecasting issues, Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , , |

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.

Go to Top