Plenary debate dated June 9, 2020 in the Lower House of the Franchise Act – dated June 10, 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
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
Article in Entrance: “Resignation”
Fire an employee who is not performing well? The subdistrict court is strict. If you, as an employer, cannot demonstrate that you have done everything yourself to make the person function better, it will be
Cost price that is too high as a hidden franchise fee
An interlocutory judgment of the District Court of The Hague dated 30 August 2017, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2017:10597 (Happy Nurse) shows that the court has considered the question whether the
Supermarket letter – 19
Coop liability for damages due to non-performance towards the franchisee
Damage estimate after wrongful termination of the franchise agreement by the franchisor
In a judgment of the Supreme Court of 15 September 2017, ECLI:NL:HR:2017:2372 (Franchisee/Coop), it was discussed that supermarket organization Coop had not complied with agreements, as a result of which the franchisee
Franchisor is obliged to extend the franchise agreement
On 6 September 2017, the Rotterdam District Court ruled, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2017:6975 (Misty / Bram Ladage), that the refusal to extend a franchise agreement by a franchisor
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