Switching franchisee from one franchise organization to another is not without risks
Court of Amsterdam
The court in Amsterdam recently ruled in a case where a franchisee switched from one franchisor to another, in the same industry.
Both the transferring franchisee and the new franchisor have a major responsibility in this regard. The new franchisor’s duty of care entails that the franchisor must investigate the facts and circumstances under which the franchisee is transferring. This should not only include a possible non-competition clause and its consequences, but also what the current obligations of the franchisee are towards the existing franchisor. It is insufficient if the new franchisor claims that it was not aware that there was a non-competition clause or that the transferring franchisee had outstanding obligations towards the old franchisor. If the franchisor simply cooperates in the transfer, i.e. without further active investigation, it may be unlawful towards the existing franchisor. For example, the disadvantage may be the transfer of customers from one franchise organization to another at the hands of the franchisee and the new franchisor. It does not matter that the franchisee camouflages activities by means of a private company, in which a third party, for example a family member, has formal control as the sole shareholder. This is where the court comes in.
Ultimately, the Amsterdam court concludes that both the new franchisor and the transferring franchisee are liable towards the old franchisor.
Careful consideration and an open card could have prevented all this.
Mr Th.R. Ludwig – Franchise lawyer
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice
Do you want to respond? Mail to ludwig@ludwigvandam.nl
Other messages
The Supreme Court sets strict requirements for franchise forecasts
A ruling by the Supreme Court on Friday casts a new light on the provision of profit and turnover forecasts to aspiring franchisees.
Infringement of exclusive service area by franchisor in connection with formula change dated February 27, 2017
On 30 January 2017, the provisional relief judge of the District Court of Noord-Holland, ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2017:688 (Intertoys/franchisee), was asked how to deal with the
Forecasts at startup franchise formula
The Amsterdam Court of Appeal ruled on 14 February 2017, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:455 (Tot Straks/franchisee) on the question whether the franchisor had provided an unsatisfactory prognosis and whether the
Mandatory transfer of franchise business to franchisor?
On January 23, 2017, the District Court of Amsterdam, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2017:412 (CoffeeCompany/Dam Spirit BV) rendered a judgment on the question whether a franchisee upon termination of the cooperation
Transfer customer data to franchisor
In its judgment of 10 January 2017, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:68 (OnlineAccountants.nl), the Amsterdam Court ruled, among other things, on the question of how customer data should be transferred.
Franchise Closing Sale – Who Gets the Sale Proceeds?
The judgment of the District Court of the Northern Netherlands dated 12 October 2016, ECLI:NL:RBNNE:2016:5061 (Administrator/Expert Group and Rabobank), focused on the question whether the franchisor, together with the bank,