Partial indebtedness of entrance fees due to lack of turnover and non-delivery of contractual performance by the franchisor
Court of Rotterdam
The franchisee rightly invokes unforeseen circumstances due to the lack of turnover and successfully claims moderation of the entrance fee due. The fact that no turnover has been realized within the framework of the franchise agreement, which moreover allows settlement of the entrance fee in connection with future turnover, is, in the opinion of the court, a circumstance that entails that the franchisee rightly invokes (partial) ) innocence. In addition, the franchisor has not provided any significant services. In addition to offering the franchise formula, only general printed matter, business cards, billboards and a general introduction were provided. Thus, the obligation of advice and assistance in accordance with the franchisor’s duty of care has apparently not been complied with. The court eventually halves the contractually due entrance fee.
NB: The fact that the court recognizes the lack of turnover as an unforeseen circumstance may also mean a new entry in the event of unrealized forecasts by franchisees. The ruling once again emphasizes the far-reaching duty of care of franchisors with regard to the actual ability to achieve reasonably expected turnovers, whether or not laid down in financial forecasts. If this core obligation from the franchise relationship is not met, the franchisee can invoke various grounds in relation to an action for damages against the franchisor.
Mr Th.R. Ludwig – Franchise lawyer
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice Would you like to respond? Mail to ludwig@ludwigvandam.nl
Other messages
Bankrupt because the franchisor refused to sell the franchise company – dated January 28, 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The District Court of The Hague has dealt with a request from a franchisor to declare a franchisee bankrupt.
Prescribed shop fitting – dated January 28, 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Midden-Nederland District Court has ruled on whether a franchisee is obliged to carry the shop fittings prescribed by the franchisor.
Ludwig & Van Dam attorneys summon Sandd and PostNL on behalf of the Sandd franchisees – dated 9 January 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Association of Franchisees of Sandd (VFS) has today summoned Sandd and PostNL before the court in Arnhem. The VFS believes that Sandd and PostNL are letting the franchisees down hard.
Article The National Franchise Guide: “Why joint and several liability, for example, next to private?” – dated 7 January 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
Franchisees are often asked to co-sign the franchise agreement in addition to their franchise, for example. Sometimes franchisees refuse to do so and the franchise agreement is not signed.
Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten assists Sandd franchisees: Franchisees Sandd challenge postal monopoly in court – dated 12 November 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Association of Franchisees of Sandd (VFS) is challenging the decision of State Secretary Mona Keijzer to approve the postal merger between PostNL and Sandd before the court in Rotterdam.
Franchisee trapped by non-compete clause? – dated October 21, 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
The District Court of East Brabant has ruled that a franchisee was still bound by the non-competition clause in the event of premature termination of the franchise agreement.