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
Does a franchisee have to accept a new model franchise agreement?
On 31 March 2017, the District Court of Rotterdam, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2017:2457, ruled in interlocutory proceedings on the question whether franchisor Bram Ladage had complied with the franchise agreement with its franchisee.
Mandatory (market-based) purchase prices for franchisees
To what extent can a franchisor change agreements about the (market) purchase prices of the goods that the franchisees are obliged to purchase?
Director’s liability of a franchisee after failing to rely on an unsound prognosis.
On 11 July 2017, the Court of Appeal of 's-Hertogenbosch made a decision on whether the franchisor could successfully sue the director of a BV for non-compliance with the
Liability accountant for prepared prognosis?
In a judgment of the Court of Appeal of 's-Hertogenbosch of 11 July 2017, ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2017:3153, it was discussed that franchisees accused the franchisor's accountant of being liable
How far does the bank’s duty of care extend?
Some time ago the question was raised in case law what the position of the bank is in the triangular relationship franchisor – bank – franchisee.
Burden of proof reversal in forecasting as misleading advertising?
In an interlocutory judgment of 15 June 2017, the District Court of Zeeland-West-Brabant, ECLI:NL:RBZWB:2017:3833, ruled on a claim for (among other things) suspension of the non-compete clause.