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
The (in)validity of a post-contractual non-competition clause in a franchise agreement: analogy with employment law?
On 5 September 2017, the District Court of Gelderland, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2017:4565, rendered a judgment on, among other things, the question of whether Bruna, as a franchisor, could invoke the prohibition for a
Column Franchise+ – mr. J Sterk: “Court orders fast food chain to extend franchise agreement
The case is set to begin this year. For years, the franchisee has been refusing to sign the new franchise agreement that was offered with renewal, as it would lead to a deterioration of his legal position
Not a valid non-compete clause for franchisee
On 18 November 2016, the interim relief judge of the Central Netherlands District Court, ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2016:7754, rendered a judgment in the issue concerning whether the franchisee was held
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?