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
Which court for a rental and franchise agreement?
Which court is competent to rule on a related rental and franchise agreement?
Interview Franchise+ – mrs. J. Sterk and AW Dolphijn – “Reversal burden of proof in forecasts honored by court”
The new Acquisition Fraud Act indeed appears to be relevant for the franchise industry, according to this article from Franchise+.
Franchisor convicted under the Acquisition Fraud Act
For the first time, a court has ruled, with reference to the Acquisition Fraud Act, that if a franchisee claims that the franchisor has presented an unsatisfactory prognosis
Agreements Related to the Franchise Agreement
On 31 October 2017, the Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal issued similar judgments for nineteen franchisees (ECLI:NL:GHARL:2017:9453 through ECLI:NL:GHARL:2017:9472).
Column Franchise+ – mr. J. Sterk – “Franchisee does body check better than franchise check”
A gym embarks on a franchise concept that offers “Body Checks” and discounts to (potential) members in collaboration with health insurers.
Seminar Mrs. J. Sterk and M. Munnik – Thursday, November 2, 2017: “Important legal developments for franchisors”
Attorneys Jeroen Sterk and Maaike Munnik of Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten will update you on the status of and developments surrounding the Dutch Franchise Code and the Acquisition Fraude Act.