Nuanced franchise agreement on the grounds of error is a nuanced consideration
The Court in preliminary relief proceedings in Rotterdam recently ruled that a franchisor cannot simply be held responsible for any incorrect statement made by the franchisor.
In principle, an agreement can be annulled if there is a mistake. That is to say, if the franchise agreement was concluded due to such an incorrect statement from the franchisor or if relevant information was omitted, the franchisee would not have entered into the franchise agreement if he had been aware of that inaccuracy.
However, the preliminary relief judge ruled that this should be assessed in a nuanced manner and that certainly not every incorrect statement can be a reason to nullify the franchise agreement lightly. First of all, it goes without saying that the statements must have been made by the franchisor itself, prior to the conclusion of the franchise agreement. Furthermore, the adverse effect of that communication must also be really visible. It is interesting, however, that the preliminary relief judge adds that a limited exaggeration in material that is mainly promotional in nature is allowed. The case concerned the success rate of a formula that, in the franchisee’s view, presented the case too optimistically. However, according to the preliminary relief judge, the franchisee must be aware that the promotional texts used by the franchisors, especially if they are aimed primarily at the consumer, the customer of the franchisee, cannot be translated one-on-one as hard promises. According to the preliminary relief judge, franchisees should be aware that, according to general empirical rules, it is customary that promotional texts often contain some degree of exaggeration and that this is also permitted.
The judgment endorses that an appeal of error should not be lightly invoked, but should be carefully assessed. All the more so now that the consequences can be considerable for both parties. After all, if the agreement is annulled, it will be deemed never to have existed and all performances will have to be undone again. The damage to both sides is then considerable.
Ludwig & Van Dam franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice
Other messages
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.
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).