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
Alex Dolphijn in the Financial Dagblad about the judgment of the Supreme Court regarding Street-One
Franchisors more liable for incorrect forecasts Franchisees can now more easily hold their parent organization liable for incorrect profit and turnover forecasts.
Supermarket letter – 17
Supreme Court: More quickly liable for forecasts
Article in Entrance: “Small print”
“When I do business with a supplier, I never read the fine print. Recently I noticed that there are all kinds of things in it that I actually do not agree with.
Column Franchise+ – mr. Th.R. Ludwig: “Delivery stop by franchisor again not allowed”
Once again, the president in preliminary relief proceedings ruled on the question whether a franchisor's supply stop against the franchisee was permitted, with the franchisee paying a substantial
The manager (employee) who becomes a franchisee – fictitious employment?
On 14 December 2016, the subdistrict court judge of the District Court of Noord-Holland, ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2016:11031 (Employee/Espresso Lounge), considered the situation in which an employee
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.