The franchise agreement without (heavy demands on) know-how
In the 2023-1 edition of Contracting magazine, I published a contribution entitled: “The franchise agreement without (strict requirements for) know-how”.
For the qualification as a franchise agreement, the Franchise Act requires that there is a franchise formula of which know-how is a part. This law places high demands on this know-how. If these requirements are not met, there is no franchise agreement and the protective provisions of the Franchise Act are missing. The question is why such high demands are placed on know-how. It is concluded that the element of the necessarily present ‘know-how’ in the franchise formula should be weakened, so that the legal definition of the franchise agreement becomes broader.
The article can be ordered here from the publisher Boom Uitgevers.
Ludwig & Van Dam lawyers, franchise legal advice.
Do you want to respond? Then email to dolphijn@ludwigvandam.nl
![Artikel Concetracteren 2023-1](https://www.ludwigvandam.nl/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Artikel-Concetracteren-2023-1-scaled.jpeg)
Other messages
Unlawful termination of dealer agreement
The Court of Appeal in The Hague recently ruled in a case in which an importer and distributor of a car brand had terminated an agreement with one of its dealers.
Jurisdiction of the subdistrict court in cases of misrepresentation
The assessment of disputes about a (sub)lease agreement is assigned by law to the specialist sub-district court, while disputes about a franchise agreement are, in principle, dealt with by the '
It’s right in the shopping street
It's right in the shopping street
Unilateral increase in franchise fee
Unilateral increase in franchise fee
Franchise Frühstück Consultants House GmbH
On February 20, 2011, Mr. DL van Dam participated by invitation in a “Franchise Frühstück”, organized by Consultants House GmbH, Mr. Jörg Eckhold, one of the leading franchise co
Arbitration clause in general terms and conditions/franchise agreement
Recently, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal ruled on an issue centered around the question of whether the arbitration clause included in the general terms and conditions had been legally agreed upon.