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
Infringement of exclusive service area by franchisor in connection with formula change dated February 27, 2017
On 30 January 2017, the provisional relief judge of the District Court of Noord-Holland, ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2017:688 (Intertoys/franchisee), was asked how to deal with the
Forecasts at startup franchise formula
The Amsterdam Court of Appeal ruled on 14 February 2017, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:455 (Tot Straks/franchisee) on the question whether the franchisor had provided an unsatisfactory prognosis and whether the
Mandatory transfer of franchise business to franchisor?
On January 23, 2017, the District Court of Amsterdam, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2017:412 (CoffeeCompany/Dam Spirit BV) rendered a judgment on the question whether a franchisee upon termination of the cooperation
Transfer customer data to franchisor
In its judgment of 10 January 2017, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:68 (OnlineAccountants.nl), the Amsterdam Court ruled, among other things, on the question of how customer data should be transferred.
Franchise Closing Sale – Who Gets the Sale Proceeds?
The judgment of the District Court of the Northern Netherlands dated 12 October 2016, ECLI:NL:RBNNE:2016:5061 (Administrator/Expert Group and Rabobank), focused on the question whether the franchisor, together with the bank,
Column Franchise+ – mr. Th.R. Ludwig: “Judge: franchisor’s duty of care comparable to that of a bank”
Various judgments in 2016 made it clear how high the standard of care for a franchisor towards its franchisees is.