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
Liability accountant for prepared prognosis?
In a judgment of the Court of Appeal of 's-Hertogenbosch of 11 July 2017, ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2017:3153, it was discussed that franchisees accused the franchisor's accountant of being liable
How far does the bank’s duty of care extend?
Some time ago the question was raised in case law what the position of the bank is in the triangular relationship franchisor – bank – franchisee.
Burden of proof reversal in forecasting as misleading advertising?
In an interlocutory judgment of 15 June 2017, the District Court of Zeeland-West-Brabant, ECLI:NL:RBZWB:2017:3833, ruled on a claim for (among other things) suspension of the non-compete clause.
Fine for franchisor because aspiring franchisee is foreigner
On 5 July 2017, the Council of State, ECLI:NL:RVS:2017:1815, decided whether, in the case of (proposed) cooperation between a franchisor and a prospective franchisee, the franchisor
Article in Entrance: “Company name”
“I came up with a wonderful name for my catering company and incurred the necessary costs for this. Now there is another entrepreneur who is going to use almost the same one. Is that allowed?"
The bank’s duty of care in franchise agreements
On 23 May 2017, the Court of Appeal in The Hague, EQLI:NL:GHDHA:2017:1368, had to rule on the question whether the bank should have warned a prospective franchisee in connection with the