Settling claims between franchisor and franchisee
It seems so obvious. You have a claim against someone who also receives money from you and you agree that the person who has to pay the highest amount has paid the excess of his own claim to the other. For example, you have a claim against A of € 100.00 and A has a claim against you of € 75.00, then A will pay you an amount of € 25.00. The receivables are then settled.
The law also provides for this possibility. From article 6:127 of the Dutch Civil Code, settlement has been arranged.
The law stipulates that you can invoke set-off. This possibility exists when claims arose from the same legal relationship, which means that claims based on different agreements cannot, in principle, be set off against each other. If you have concluded both a rental agreement and a franchise agreement with your franchisor, this would mean that the claim based on the rental agreement cannot be set off against a claim based on the franchise agreement. Often these two agreements are linked. That link may be more or less explicitly included in the agreements. Settlement of the receivables is possible again when agreements are linked.
It is therefore advisable to check the agreements for the presence of a link before settling receivables. In any case, it is advisable to check whether the settlement of claims is not excluded in the agreement.
In practice, moreover, it often happens that settlement is not announced, but is simply done. This is not the right way and even leads to non-performance. It is important that settlement is explicitly announced. I advise you to record this in writing so that there can be no ambiguity afterwards about the status of the claims.
If you want to offset claims against each other, I can give you the following tips, referring to the above:
– Check in your agreement whether offsetting is not excluded;
– In the case of several agreements, check whether there is a link between the agreements;
– If you are a franchisee, notify your franchisor in writing that you are offsetting;
– If in doubt, you as a franchisee can discuss the possibility of settlement with your franchisor.
Ludwig & Van Dam franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice
Other messages
The Real Intentions of the Parties to a Franchise Agreement – Mr. C. Damen – dated November 23, 2020
What really was the idea of the parties when they concluded a franchise agreement?
Circumventing the prohibition of competition in the franchise agreement – mr. AW Dolphijn – dated November 10, 2020
A non-competition clause in a franchise agreement is often experienced as objectionable by franchisees, especially if the non-competition clause also applies after the franchise agreement has expired.
Article Franchise+ – “How do I get rid of my debts: Also for franchisees and franchisors” – mr. AW Dolphijn – dated October 20, 2020
A reorganization may also be necessary for franchisees and franchisors who are in financial difficulties in order to continue to exist.
Article De Nationale Franchise Gids: “Reinvestment obligation for franchisees has limits” – dated October 13, 2020 – mr. RCWL Albers
In practice, it often happens that franchisors choose to renew their franchise formula and the appropriate image
Judge anticipates Franchise Act: no mandatory formula change (without threshold value)
The District Court of Amsterdam ruled that a Blokker franchisee is not obliged to renovate the store in accordance with the latest formula principles, as instructed by Blokker.
Interview Mr. J. Sterk and mr. C. Rutten in Franchise+: “Call to the automotive sector: prepare yourself well for the new Franchise Act” dated October 2, 2020
The new Franchise Act has a broad effect, also in the automotive sector. But are people aware of it enough?