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
Ludwig & Van Dam attorneys summon Sandd and PostNL on behalf of the Sandd franchisees – dated 9 January 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Association of Franchisees of Sandd (VFS) has today summoned Sandd and PostNL before the court in Arnhem. The VFS believes that Sandd and PostNL are letting the franchisees down hard.
Article The National Franchise Guide: “Why joint and several liability, for example, next to private?” – dated 7 January 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
Franchisees are often asked to co-sign the franchise agreement in addition to their franchise, for example. Sometimes franchisees refuse to do so and the franchise agreement is not signed.
Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten assists Sandd franchisees: Franchisees Sandd challenge postal monopoly in court – dated 12 November 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Association of Franchisees of Sandd (VFS) is challenging the decision of State Secretary Mona Keijzer to approve the postal merger between PostNL and Sandd before the court in Rotterdam.
Franchisee trapped by non-compete clause? – dated October 21, 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
The District Court of East Brabant has ruled that a franchisee was still bound by the non-competition clause in the event of premature termination of the franchise agreement.
Supermarket letter – 26
Supermarket Newsletter No. 26
Link franchise agreement and rental agreement uncertain? – dated October 14, 2019 – mr K. Bastiaans
It is no exception within a franchise relationship that the parties agree that the franchise agreement and the rental agreement are inextricably linked.