The franchisee as the weaker party
Is the relationship between a supplier and a distributor similar to the relationship between a franchisor and franchisee? The District Court of Rotterdam, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2022:11463, ruled on this on 28 December 2022.
The issue concerned an agreement to distribute construction products. These products had been developed by the claimant. The defendant wanted to distribute the products. To this end, the parties entered into a distribution agreement.
However, the results of the collaboration were disappointing. The supplier demanded compliance with the distribution agreement. The distributor defended itself by making a comparison with the protection that a franchisee has as a “weaker party” in the event of incorrect forecasts. The distributor stated that it had entered into the agreement on the basis of incorrect assumptions and that the supplier had violated its pre-contractual information obligation. The distributor would have erred. The court did not follow the distributor’s reasoning.
The comparison that the distributor makes with franchise agreements and the jurisprudence about incorrect forecasts when entering into such an agreement does not hold. In franchise agreements, the franchisee is generally the weaker party, who has few options when entering into the franchise agreement to check (or have checked) the information provided by the franchisor about the franchise formula. In the present situation, the defendant is rather the stronger party who simply had the opportunity to conduct thorough research into the alleged potency of the product. For that reason alone, the situations are not at all comparable.
The court confirms that the franchisee can be regarded as a relatively “weaker party” in relation to the franchisor. Legislative history also shows that the franchise relationship is, in a sense, intrinsically unequal. This is not the case in the relationship between the supplier and the distributor, according to the court. This underlines the distinctive importance of the franchise agreement.
Ludwig & Van Dam lawyers, franchise legal advice.
Do you want to respond? Then email to dolphijn@ludwigvandam.nl
Other messages
Ludwig & Van Dam attorneys summon Sandd and PostNL on behalf of the Sandd franchisees – dated 9 January 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Association of Franchisees of Sandd (VFS) has today summoned Sandd and PostNL before the court in Arnhem. The VFS believes that Sandd and PostNL are letting the franchisees down hard.
Article The National Franchise Guide: “Why joint and several liability, for example, next to private?” – dated 7 January 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
Franchisees are often asked to co-sign the franchise agreement in addition to their franchise, for example. Sometimes franchisees refuse to do so and the franchise agreement is not signed.
Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten assists Sandd franchisees: Franchisees Sandd challenge postal monopoly in court – dated 12 November 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Association of Franchisees of Sandd (VFS) is challenging the decision of State Secretary Mona Keijzer to approve the postal merger between PostNL and Sandd before the court in Rotterdam.
Franchisee trapped by non-compete clause? – dated October 21, 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
The District Court of East Brabant has ruled that a franchisee was still bound by the non-competition clause in the event of premature termination of the franchise agreement.
Supermarket letter – 26
Supermarket Newsletter No. 26
Link franchise agreement and rental agreement uncertain? – dated October 14, 2019 – mr K. Bastiaans
It is no exception within a franchise relationship that the parties agree that the franchise agreement and the rental agreement are inextricably linked.