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. 

When Is a Franchisor Liable for a Misforecast? More than 15 years ago, the Supreme Court indicated that the franchisor is acting unlawfully if it provides a forecast that it knows contains serious errors and conceals those errors. Since then, it has been held in lower case law that the franchisor only acts unlawfully if the franchisor has deliberately made and left an incorrect assumption. 

On 24 February 2017, the Supreme Court (ECLI:NL:HR:2017:311) indicated that a franchisor can also act unlawfully if the forecast contains errors, without the franchisor being aware of those errors. So this is a lower standard. 

Only if a franchisor has the forecast drawn up by an external party does the heavier standard of good judgment apply. In that case, the franchisor may generally (also) rely on the correctness of the forecast drawn up by the third party. The franchisor only acts wrongfully if he knows about errors in the forecast, but conceals this from the prospective franchisee. 

Franchisors will have to be (even more) wary of errors in forecasts provided to aspiring franchisees. In addition to the Dutch Franchise Code and the Acquisition Fraude Act, franchisees are also supported by the Supreme Court to enforce their rights. 

mr. J. Sterk and mr. AW Dolphin 

Ludwig & Van Dam attorneys

Other messages

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

By Alex Dolphijn|27-02-2017|Categories: Dispute settlement, Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , |

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

Transfer customer data to franchisor

In its judgment of 10 January 2017, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:68 (OnlineAccountants.nl), the Amsterdam Court ruled, among other things, on the question of how customer data should be transferred.

Franchise Closing Sale – Who Gets the Sale Proceeds?

The judgment of the District Court of the Northern Netherlands dated 12 October 2016, ECLI:NL:RBNNE:2016:5061 (Administrator/Expert Group and Rabobank), focused on the question whether the franchisor, together with the bank,

By Alex Dolphijn|10-02-2017|Categories: Dispute settlement, Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , |

Column Franchise+ – mr. Th.R. Ludwig: “Judge: franchisor’s duty of care comparable to that of a bank”

Various judgments in 2016 made it clear how high the standard of care for a franchisor towards its franchisees is.

Go to Top