Supermarket letter – 23

By Published On: 17-05-2018Categories: label11, SupermarketsTags:

                                                                  SUPERMARKET NEWSLETTER NO. 23

 

1. AH may not reduce wages when taking over personnel from AH franchisees;

2. Unjustified statements by FNV about wages and rickety seats of AH franchisee;   

3. Albert Heijn liable for a slippery floor.

In a case from FNV against Albert Heijn about employees whose wages at a franchisee were higher than the collective labor agreement wages, the question was whether Albert Heijn could reduce wages if it had taken over the franchisee’s shop.

 

Click here for the entire article.

  

Other messages

HEMA sentenced to suspend e-commerce contribution to franchisees

HEMA is in conflict with its franchisees about the contribution to e-commerce costs. HEMA believes that the existing scheme from 1997 is outdated.

Error or deception in the conclusion of the franchise agreement

A franchisee who regrets after entering into a franchise agreement may believe that before or at the conclusion of the franchise agreement by the franchisor ...

The supplier prescribed by the franchisor is not performing? What now?

The Court of Appeal of 's-Hertogenbosch ruled on 20 February 2018, ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2018:727, on the question of who must prove that the franchisee was misled when entering into the

Judge: Protect franchisee against supermarket organization (Coop) as lessor

Does the franchisee need legal protection from supermarket franchisor Coop? The District Court of Rotterdam ruled on 9 February 2018, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2018:1151, that this is the case.

Acquisition fraud vs. error in franchise forecasting

Who has to prove that the franchisor's forecast is unsound? In principle, this is the franchisee. If the franchisee invokes the Acquisition Fraud Act, it may be that

Go to Top