Supreme Court: Code of Honor regarding franchising has no legal effect – dated September 25, 2018 – mr. AW Dolphin

On 21 September 2018, the Supreme Court ruled that the European Code of Honor on Franchising is not a benchmark for legal beliefs in the Netherlands. This Code of Honor states that a franchisor must provide the prospective franchisee with all available information and other data, such as a forecast, before concluding the franchise agreement. That obligation is therefore not enforceable.

The case concerned a franchisor who had indicated that he was committed to the European Code of Honour. The franchisor had prepared an initial forecast that was less rosy than the one the franchisor ultimately provided. The franchisee believed that the initial prognosis should also have been provided and referred to the obligations under the Honor Code. The Supreme Court ruled that the franchisor has no obligation to provide a prognosis and therefore also not the initial prognosis. According to the Supreme Court, the fact that the franchisor had committed itself to the Code of Honor does not change this, because the Code of Honor is not enforceable.

Providing information prior to concluding a franchise agreement is one of the cabinet’s spearheads in the preparation of franchise legislation. The above judgment appears to underline the need for regulation by the legislator of the franchisor’s obligation to provide complete and sufficient information prior to the conclusion of the franchise agreement. The aspiring franchisee would do well to at least request all much-needed information and to be critical of this.

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

When does a franchisor go too far when recruiting franchisees?

The judgment of the Court of Appeal of Arnhem-Leeuwarden on 5 February 2019 dealt with whether the franchisor had acted impermissibly when recruiting the franchisees.

Advisory Board on Regulatory Pressure (ATR) advises State Secretary Keijzer about the Franchise Act

In short, it is first advised to actively inform franchisors and franchisees about this amendment to the law.

Post non-competition ban on services and sales franchise

When a franchise agreement ends, many franchisees encounter a prohibition in the franchise agreement to perform similar work for a period of time thereafter

The concept of the Franchise Act: impact for franchisors and franchisees – dated February 5, 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin

Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten believes that if the draft of the Franchise Act actually becomes law, a lot will change for franchisors and franchisees.

Buy franchise business and the laid off sick employee from 7 years ago

The question is whether a Bruna franchisee, when selling the franchise company to Bruna, should have stated that seven years ago an employee had left employment sick.

Court prohibits Domino’s unilateral area reduction when extending franchise agreements – dated January 28, 2019 – mr. RCWL Albers

On January 9, 2019, the District Court of Rotterdam rendered a judgment in a lawsuit initiated by the Association of Domino's Pizza Franchisees and all its members (almost all Domino's franchisees).

By Remy Albers|28-01-2019|Categories: Dispute settlement, Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , |
Go to Top