Senate will adopt Franchise Act – dated 24 June 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The House of Representatives had unanimously adopted the proposal to introduce the Franchise Act on 16 June 2020. The bill was then forwarded to the Senate, where the Senate Committee prepared the bill.
The Senate Committee issued a blank final report on 23 June 2020. A blank final report means that the committee that prepares the debate in writing has no comments or questions about a bill.
The proposal will be dismissed as a hammer piece on 30 June 2020. A hammer piece is a bill on which no one wishes to speak in plenary and which is accepted without a vote. In principle, there should be no more debate. Ministers are therefore not invited to attend the public hearing of bills that are dismissed as hammer papers.
It looks as if the Franchise Act will be adopted by the Senate and will enter into force on 1 January 2021. This will be of great significance to existing and new franchise relationships.
mr. AW Dolphin – franchise lawyer
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice.
Do you want to respond? Go to dolphijn@ludwigvandam.nl
Other messages
Franchisor wrongly hinders internet sales by franchisee – dated September 19, 2018 – mr. AW Dolphin
Franchisor wrongly hinders internet sales by franchisee
If your franchisor is your competitor
Franchising aims at cooperation. The franchisor should assist the franchisee in achieving mutual benefit from the operation of the formula. Sometimes this gets out of balance.
Preferential right of purchase in lease does not apply – September 7, 2018 – mr. AW Dolphin
Preferential right of purchase in a rental agreement does not apply
mr. Dolphijn writes chapter Franchising in Leidraad voor de Accountant
mr. Dolphijn writes chapter Franchising in Leidraad voor de Accountant
Distrifood: Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten assists Emté franchisees in choosing a formula
Distrifood: Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten assists Emté franchisees in choosing a formula
Transfer of business with ‘preferred supplier’ of franchisees
On 13 June 2017, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal ruled in interlocutory proceedings, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:2144, on the question whether employees of a 'preferred supplier' of the