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

Circumvent post non-compete clause in franchising

On 3 April 2018, the Court of Appeal of Arnhem-Leeuwarden, ECLI:NL:GHARL:2018:3128, overturned an interim injunction of the District Court of Gelderland on competitive activities.

Column Franchise+ – “Prohibition of sales via internet platforms in franchise agreement exempt from cartel prohibition”

At the end of last year, Thuisbezorgd.nl incurred the wrath of many meal delivery companies by announcing another rate increase. The standard rate of Thuisbezorgd.nl thus reached a

By Remy Albers|09-04-2018|Categories: Competition, Statements & current affairs|Tags: |

Column Franchise+ – Franchisor acts unlawfully by providing a forecast through a third party

Disputes about forecasts between franchisor and franchisee remain a hot topic in franchising. After the Street-One judgment, it seems that franchisors feel safe

Column Franchise+ – Outsourcing forecasting to an administrative office does not benefit the franchisor

Disputes about forecasts between franchisor and franchisee remain a hot topic in franchising. After the Street-One judgment, it seems that franchisors feel safe

By Maaike Munnik|04-04-2018|Categories: Forecasting issues, Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , |

Outsourcing prognosis to an administrative office does not benefit the franchisor

Disputes about forecasts between franchisor and franchisee remain a hot topic in franchising.

Contribution Mr. AW Dolphijn in Contracting magazine 2018, no. 1: “The unilateral amendment clause in the franchise agreement.”

A contribution by mr Dolphijn has been published in the magazine Contracteren entitled: “The unilateral amendment clause in the Franchise Agreement”.

Go to Top