Recommendations by the franchisor in general terms are permitted – dated March 6, 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Amsterdam Court of Appeal ruled on January 21, 2020,
ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2020:116, which is the information provided by a franchisor
about increasing turnover, cost savings, more clientele and customer loyalty
is too general in nature to invoke acquisition fraud or error
make it succeed. There is no question of deception by the franchisor and the
The (prospective) franchisee cannot be blamed by the franchisor for this
wrong leg.
In that context, it has also been ruled that a potential franchisee is allowed
be expected to know that the franchise formula is focused on business
as revenue increase and cost savings, but that concrete results of
depend on many circumstances, such as, for example, the manner
on which the franchisee conducts his business.
It is true that, if the franchisor has concrete information about
turnover forecasts and the like, he acts unlawfully if he does so
information is incorrect and he knows this, or his carelessness leads to
which led to errors. The court refers to the judgment
HR 24-02-2017, ECLI:NL:HR:2017:311 regarding Street One. In this case it is
however, such concrete information is not provided by the franchisor
provided. That is also stated in the agreement in so many words, it said
court of justice.
The boundary between praise in general terms and
on the other hand, culpable deception and misrepresentation,
remains a tricky issue.
mr. AW Dolphijn – franchise lawyer
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice. Want
you respond?
Go to dolphijn@ludwigvandam.nl
Other messages
Column Franchise + – mr. Th.R. Ludwig: “Towards strict liability”
The Supreme Court recently ruled in a prognosis issue.
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