Seminar Mrs. J. Sterk and M. Munnik – Thursday, November 2, 2017: “Important legal developments for franchisors”

Attorneys Jeroen Sterk and Maaike Munnik of Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten will update you on the status of and developments surrounding the Dutch Franchise Code and the Acquisition Fraude Act. They will pay particular attention to the possible consequences of these changes for your franchise organization. Partly in this context, a number of important themes will be discussed, such as district exclusivity, prognostic problems, non-competition clauses and rights of consent. 

Thursday 2 November from 10.00 am – 12.30 pm followed by lunch. 

Location: Mazars Office, Flight Forum 760,5657 DT  Eindhoven 

Cost: None 

Register now for this free seminar via the link below: 

http://www.franchiseadviseur.nl/seminar-met-laatste-ontwikkelingen-op-juridisch-gebied-die-u-als-franchisegever-niet-mag-missen/#.WeDmyWi0OUk

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

Go to Top