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
Infringement of exclusive service area by franchisor in connection with formula change dated February 27, 2017
On 30 January 2017, the provisional relief judge of the District Court of Noord-Holland, ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2017:688 (Intertoys/franchisee), was asked how to deal with the
Forecasts at startup franchise formula
The Amsterdam Court of Appeal ruled on 14 February 2017, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:455 (Tot Straks/franchisee) on the question whether the franchisor had provided an unsatisfactory prognosis and whether the
Mandatory transfer of franchise business to franchisor?
On January 23, 2017, the District Court of Amsterdam, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2017:412 (CoffeeCompany/Dam Spirit BV) rendered a judgment on the question whether a franchisee upon termination of the cooperation
Transfer customer data to franchisor
In its judgment of 10 January 2017, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:68 (OnlineAccountants.nl), the Amsterdam Court ruled, among other things, on the question of how customer data should be transferred.
Franchise Closing Sale – Who Gets the Sale Proceeds?
The judgment of the District Court of the Northern Netherlands dated 12 October 2016, ECLI:NL:RBNNE:2016:5061 (Administrator/Expert Group and Rabobank), focused on the question whether the franchisor, together with the bank,
Column Franchise+ – mr. Th.R. Ludwig: “Judge: franchisor’s duty of care comparable to that of a bank”
Various judgments in 2016 made it clear how high the standard of care for a franchisor towards its franchisees is.