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
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.
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.