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.

mr. A.W. Dolphijn
Ludwig & Van Dam lawyers, franchise legal advice.
Do you want to respond? Then email to dolphijn@ludwigvandam.nl
Standstill

Other messages

Post non-competition ban on services and sales franchise

When a franchise agreement ends, many franchisees encounter a prohibition in the franchise agreement to perform similar work for a period of time thereafter

The concept of the Franchise Act: impact for franchisors and franchisees – dated February 5, 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin

Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten believes that if the draft of the Franchise Act actually becomes law, a lot will change for franchisors and franchisees.

Buy franchise business and the laid off sick employee from 7 years ago

The question is whether a Bruna franchisee, when selling the franchise company to Bruna, should have stated that seven years ago an employee had left employment sick.

Court prohibits Domino’s unilateral area reduction when extending franchise agreements – dated January 28, 2019 – mr. RCWL Albers

On January 9, 2019, the District Court of Rotterdam rendered a judgment in a lawsuit initiated by the Association of Domino's Pizza Franchisees and all its members (almost all Domino's franchisees).

By Remy Albers|28-01-2019|Categories: Dispute settlement, Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , |

Lien of the franchisee

Can a prospective franchisee invoke a right of retention to reclaim an entry fee if a franchise agreement is not concluded after the pre-agreement has been concluded?

Go to Top