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
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.
Infringement of exclusive service area by franchisor in connection with formula change dated February 27, 2017
On 30 January 2017, the provisional relief judge of the District Court of Noord-Holland, ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2017:688 (Intertoys/franchisee), was asked how to deal with the
Forecasts at startup franchise formula
The Amsterdam Court of Appeal ruled on 14 February 2017, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:455 (Tot Straks/franchisee) on the question whether the franchisor had provided an unsatisfactory prognosis and whether the
Mandatory transfer of franchise business to franchisor?
On January 23, 2017, the District Court of Amsterdam, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2017:412 (CoffeeCompany/Dam Spirit BV) rendered a judgment on the question whether a franchisee upon termination of the cooperation