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
Franchisor liable for forecasts from third parties – dated March 6, 2019 – mr. M. Munnik
According to settled case law, a franchisor acts unlawfully towards its franchisee when a franchisor independently conducts research in a careless manner and as a result...
The (hard) franchise agreement and duty of care qualified – WPNR 7226 (2019)
The government intends to include a legal regulation on franchising in the Civil Code to protect the weak position of the franchisee.
The municipality must allow temporary Albert Heijn
On 7 February 2019, the District Court of Noord-Holland ruled on whether the municipality should allow a temporary Albert Heijn
Franchisors may no longer impose changes to store hours – February 12, 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
At the end of 2018, a draft of the “Freedom of Choice for Retailers (Opening Hours) Act” was presented.
When does a franchisor go too far when recruiting franchisees?
The judgment of the Court of Appeal of Arnhem-Leeuwarden on 5 February 2019 dealt with whether the franchisor had acted impermissibly when recruiting the franchisees.
Advisory Board on Regulatory Pressure (ATR) advises State Secretary Keijzer about the Franchise Act
In short, it is first advised to actively inform franchisors and franchisees about this amendment to the law.