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: “Rentals”
“The landlord increased the prices of the property every year, but he hasn't done this for 2 years, maybe he forgets. Can he still claim an overdue amount later?”
No valid appeal to non-compete clause in franchising
On 28 February 2017, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2017:1469, the provisional relief judge of the District Court of Gelderland ruled on whether a franchisee could be bound by a non-compete clause.
Structurally unsound revenue forecasts from the franchisor
On 15 March 2017, the District Court of Limburg ruled in eight similar judgments (including ECLI:NL:RBLIM:2017:2344) on the franchise agreements of various franchisees of the P3 franchise formula.
Franchisee obliged to cooperate with formula change?
On 24 March 2017, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2017:1860, the preliminary relief judge of the Amsterdam District Court once again considered the issue in which Intertoys wishes to convert Bart Smit's stores
Delivery stop by franchisor not allowed
On 9 February 2017, the preliminary relief judge of the District Court of Gelderland, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2017:1372, ruled that a franchisor had not fulfilled its obligation to supply the franchisee
Alex Dolphijn in the Financial Dagblad about the judgment of the Supreme Court regarding Street-One
Franchisors more liable for incorrect forecasts Franchisees can now more easily hold their parent organization liable for incorrect profit and turnover forecasts.