No violation of standstill obligation
The Northern Netherlands District Court ruled in a judgment dated February 21, 2024, ECLI:NL:RBNNE:2024:548, that – despite the fact that the legal standstill period of at least 4 weeks had not been observed – the franchisee had no reasonable interest invoking the statutory regulations.
According to the franchisor, the parties had been in contact for months about the prospective franchisee opening a franchise location. According to the franchisor, the intended franchisee could not wait until he could sign the franchise agreement, had had all kinds of information for some time, had ample opportunity to ask questions (he did so) and was aware of ( his rights regarding) the legal standstill period.
In the court’s opinion, the prospective franchisee rightly argues that the standstill period regulation has been included in the law to protect him as a prospective franchisee. The prospective franchisee does not argue that he would have acted or decided differently if the franchisor had observed the statutory cooling-off period. For example, the prospective franchisee does not take the position that – if the draft of the franchise agreement had been provided to him four weeks before concluding the franchise agreement – he would have asked the franchisor further questions, sought advice and/or consulted with the franchisor and ultimately (for whatever reason) would not have signed the franchise agreement or would have concluded the franchise agreement under different conditions. The court takes into account that the prospective franchisee, even after 4 weeks had passed after signing the deed, did not make any comments on its contents and continued to implement the agreement.
Because of the foregoing, the court agrees with the franchisor that it should be assumed that the prospective franchisee has not been harmed in any respectable interest by prematurely signing the deed. The prospective franchisee’s appeal for annulment of the agreement due to failure to observe the statutory cooling-off period (as referred to in Article 7:913 paragraph 2 under a of the Dutch Civil Code and Article 7:914 of the Dutch Civil Code) is therefore, in the opinion of the court, standards of reasonableness and fairness unacceptable.
Ludwig & Van Dam lawyers, franchise legal advice.
Do you want to respond? Then email to dolphijn@ludwigvandam.nl
Other messages
Legal Franchise Statistics 2019: slight decrease in number of franchise disputes
In 2018, 44 judgments were published on Rechtspraak.nl, 12 of which were appeal cases and one in cassation (a prognosis issue against Albert Heijn).
Article De Nationale Franchisegids: “Judge again rules in favor of Domino’s franchisees” – dated September 3, 2019 – mr. RCWL Albers
At the beginning of 2018, almost all franchisees of Domino's and the Association of Domino's Pizza Franchisees submitted two issues to the court in Rotterdam.
Article De Nationale Franchisegids: “The interim termination of the franchise agreement” – August 12, 2019 – mr. JAJ Devilee
A franchise agreement can end prematurely in many ways.
Article De Nationale Franchise Gids: “Parliamentary questions asked about (false) self-employment franchisees” – dated 24 July 2019 – mr. M. Munnik
Parliamentary questions have recently been asked about the so-called bogus self-employment within the relationship between franchisor and franchisee.
Article Franchise+: “With our franchise formula you will earn mountains of gold.” dated 10 July 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
The distinction between permissible promotions and misleading information remains a gray area, despite the relevant legislation.
Franchisee may purchase a range of foreign products after mandatory formula change – June 6, 2019 – mr. JAJ Devilee
The District Court of East Brabant recently dealt with an important matter in preliminary relief proceedings in which a franchisee was completely involuntarily forced to adopt an alternative formula.