Plenary debate dated June 9, 2020 in the Lower House of the Franchise Act – dated June 10, 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin

By Published On: 10-06-2020Categories: Statements & current affairs

On 9 June 2020, the legislative proposal for the Franchise Act was discussed in plenary in the House of Representatives. An amendment and a motion have been tabled.

Amendment by members Palland and Aartsen on mandatory legal character only for franchisees established in the Netherlands. This amendment provides that the Franchise Act may not be deviated from to the detriment of franchisees operating in the Netherlands. Deviation, on the other hand, is permitted to the detriment of franchisees operating outside the Netherlands. Therefore, even if a choice of law for Dutch law has been made between the parties (where the franchisee operates outside the Netherlands), that choice does not preclude agreements that deviate from the Franchise Act being made in the franchise agreement to the detriment of that franchisee.

Motion by member Aartsen on a consultative body of franchisors and franchisees. This motion requests the government to bring representatives of franchisors and franchisees together in a periodic consultation body and to encourage them to come to model agreements and agreements for the implementation of the open standards from the Franchise Act.

The bill has received a generally positive reception and appears to meet with little resistance from members of the House of Representatives.

The (uncorrected) report of the plenary debate in the House of Representatives on the Bill to the Franchise Act can be read via the following link: https://www.tweedekamer.nl/kamerstuks/plenaire_verslagen/detail/10ef6de4-abce-44d3- 871b-a8537cd7e282#ide038e8f4

The Chairman has indicated that the bill, the amendment and the motion will be voted on next week.

 

mr. AW Dolphijn – franchise lawyer

Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice. Want
you respond? Go to

dolphijn@ludwigvandam.nl

Other messages

Compensation for reputational damage to the franchisor

A developer of a digital platform for a franchisor had provided a platform that any third party could access.

Sale of a franchise company due to a non-competition clause: False construction or not?

Franchisees who are unwilling or unable to continue with the franchise company experience whether or not the non-competition clause is valid or not.

Prohibited Franchise Agreements: Conduct of Franchisees Among Others

Forms of franchising that do not involve a vertical relationship between the franchisor on the one hand and the franchisees on the other may be prohibited.

A new franchisor against will and thanks

Mergers between franchise organizations are no longer an exception. Multivlaai/Limburgia, DA/DIO, Emté/Jumbo are recent examples of this.

Supreme Court: Code of Honor regarding franchising has no legal effect – dated September 25, 2018 – mr. AW Dolphin

Supreme Court: Code of honor on franchising has no legal force

By Alex Dolphijn|25-09-2018|Categories: Dispute settlement, Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , |
Go to Top