The supplier prescribed by the franchisor is not performing? What now?

The Court of Appeal of ‘s-Hertogenbosch ruled on 20 February 2018, ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2018:727, on the question of who must prove that the franchisee was misled when entering into the franchise agreement. 

Under the franchise agreement, the franchisee must purchase exclusively from suppliers specified by the franchisor. The franchisee states that the franchisor already had problems with two prescribed suppliers at the time, but did not communicate this to the franchisee when the franchise contract was signed. The franchisee invokes fraud and error and nullifies the concluded franchise agreement on those grounds. The franchisor disputes the alleged problems with the prescribed suppliers. The Court ruled that if the franchisor indeed had problems with the exclusive suppliers, the franchisor should have communicated this to the person who was about to become a franchisee. 

The franchisee believes that the burden of proof regarding the problems with the prescribed suppliers lies with the franchisor. The Court of Appeal ruled that the franchisee invoked a lack of will and stated that there were grounds to nullify the franchise agreement. Based on the main rule, this entails that he must prove the facts on which he is based, which have been disputed by the franchisor with reasons. The franchisee therefore has the burden of proof. 

It is not inconceivable that the franchisee might have had a different position of proof if the Acquisition Fraude Act had been invoked. After all, there is an explicit possibility to reverse the burden of proof if there is a sufficient suspicion of deception.

mr. AW Dolphin  – franchise lawyer
 

Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice. Do you want to respond? Go to dolphijn@ludwigvandam.nl .

Other messages

Article Franchise & Law No. 7 – Franchise agreement as general terms and conditions

Uniformity of the franchise formula and (therefore also) uniformity of the agreements with the franchisees will often be of great importance to the franchisor.

By Alex Dolphijn|01-02-2018|Categories: Dispute settlement, Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , |

The franchisee’s customer base

If the partnership between a franchisee and a franchisor ends, the question of who will continue to serve the customers may arise.

The healthcare franchisor is not a healthcare provider

The Healthcare Quality, Complaints and Disputes Act (WKKGZ) creates the possibility of government measures being imposed on healthcare institutions to guarantee the required quality of healthcare.

The restructuring within the Intergamma formats from a legal perspective

The legal reality is sometimes more unruly than the factual. The controversial issue at Intergamma is a good example of this.

Non-compete clause on the sale of a franchise business

How strict should a non-compete clause be when selling a franchise business to the franchisor? This question was raised in a dispute in which the District Court of Gelderland op

Go to Top