The small print, obligatory for the franchisee?
In many franchise formulas, the franchisee is obliged to use the contacts put forward by the franchisor, such as a permanent supplier or permanent adviser. Because that regular supplier or consultant will often apply its own general terms and conditions, these terms and conditions are more or less imposed on the franchisee. This is not necessary.
They are often referred to as the ‘small print’: the general terms and conditions used by suppliers, banks, insurers, and so on. The conditions are often printed almost unreadably small on the back of a contract or quotation. And while everyone knows that the ‘small print’ is important, they are rarely read properly.
Nevertheless, it is very important to carefully read the general terms and conditions that the other party declares applicable when concluding a contract. Although the law offers some protection against unreasonably onerous provisions, that protection mainly applies to consumers and not to people acting in the course of a business.
The franchisee can always make agreements with any contracting party that deviate from one or more provisions of the general terms and conditions of this party. After all, freedom of contract also applies in this relationship. It is only a matter of reading the terms and conditions carefully. You can submit all provisions that you find and that you do not like to the contracting party. Ultimately, by negotiating this, you can arrive at a set of general terms and conditions that is acceptable to both parties.
An example to underline the importance of negotiation:
Suppose your supplier’s general terms and conditions state that a specified delivery date is never a deadline. In your industry, however, you regularly make agreements with your customers, which must be kept on time. If you are late, your customers will incur damage that they may be able to recover from you. It is then advisable to change the general terms and conditions with the supplier in such a way that the delivery date stated to the supplier is a strict deadline, unless it has been expressly stated that this is not the case.
Ludwig & Van Dam franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice
Other messages
Burden of proof reversal in forecasting as misleading advertising?
In an interlocutory judgment of 15 June 2017, the District Court of Zeeland-West-Brabant, ECLI:NL:RBZWB:2017:3833, ruled on a claim for (among other things) suspension of the non-compete clause.
Fine for franchisor because aspiring franchisee is foreigner
On 5 July 2017, the Council of State, ECLI:NL:RVS:2017:1815, decided whether, in the case of (proposed) cooperation between a franchisor and a prospective franchisee, the franchisor
Article in Entrance: “Company name”
“I came up with a wonderful name for my catering company and incurred the necessary costs for this. Now there is another entrepreneur who is going to use almost the same one. Is that allowed?"
The bank’s duty of care in franchise agreements
On 23 May 2017, the Court of Appeal in The Hague, EQLI:NL:GHDHA:2017:1368, had to rule on the question whether the bank should have warned a prospective franchisee in connection with the
Article in Entrance: “Standing up”
“Can I fire an employee with immediate effect if he steals something trivial, such as food that has passed its expiration date?”
Arbitration clause in franchise agreement sometimes inconvenient
On 20 July 2016, the District Court of Gelderland, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2016:4868, ruled on the validity of an agreement in a franchise agreement, whereby disputes would be settled