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
HEMA sentenced to suspend e-commerce contribution to franchisees
HEMA is in conflict with its franchisees about the contribution to e-commerce costs. HEMA believes that the existing scheme from 1997 is outdated.
Error or deception in the conclusion of the franchise agreement
A franchisee who regrets after entering into a franchise agreement may believe that before or at the conclusion of the franchise agreement by the franchisor ...
Supermarket letter – 21
Judge: Protect franchisee against supermarket organization (Coop) as lessor
The supplier prescribed by the franchisor is not performing? What now?
The Court of Appeal of 's-Hertogenbosch ruled on 20 February 2018, ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2018:727, on the question of who must prove that the franchisee was misled when entering into the
Judge: Protect franchisee against supermarket organization (Coop) as lessor
Does the franchisee need legal protection from supermarket franchisor Coop? The District Court of Rotterdam ruled on 9 February 2018, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2018:1151, that this is the case.
Acquisition fraud vs. error in franchise forecasting
Who has to prove that the franchisor's forecast is unsound? In principle, this is the franchisee. If the franchisee invokes the Acquisition Fraud Act, it may be that