Turnover and result: the principle of prudence

In various countries in the world, franchising is subject to increasingly stringent regulations. In general, these regulations mainly focus on what is so nicely called “pre-contractual disclosure” in English, known here in the Netherlands as pre-contractual information provision. In the Netherlands we find some rules in this regard in the European Code of Honor regarding Franchising, to which the members of the Dutch Franchise Association are bound in principle. Legislation, however, is not. In short, this means that prior to entering into a contract, a franchisor adequately informs its prospective franchisee(s) with regard to the turnover to be achieved with the franchised company and, more importantly, operating results. In France, an obligation to provide information in this regard has been included in legislation, in the United States and Australia, for example, this obligation extends much further. As mentioned, no such obligation has been included in legislation in the Netherlands, but it remains limited to the framework of the European Code of Honor. Nevertheless, and this has been discussed several times in this section, the provision of information that is as adequate as possible prior to the conclusion of a contract is of the utmost importance. Franchisees have a right to know what they are getting into. Incomplete or incorrect provision of information, leading to the conclusion of a contract, can also lead to substantial liabilities and problems in the business operations of both the franchisee and the franchisor. It is therefore not without reason that various countries have included this in legislation. Unlike in the Netherlands, there is therefore no freedom of choice regarding whether or not to present turnover and result forecasts.

In the Netherlands, there is that freedom of choice. A franchisor can therefore always refrain from giving indications about the turnover and results to be achieved with the franchise company. If a franchisor does provide such information, it should be recalled once again that this information must be based on a thorough and adequately conducted market and location survey, specifically tailored to the franchisee’s intended establishment in question. A critical attitude from the franchisor’s side to the results of such research is also appropriate, even if it is carried out by a market research agency. Due diligence must always be leading. The matter is important enough for that.

Ludwig & Van Dam franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice

Other messages

A closer look at the intention to introduce franchising legislation

On May 23rd, State Secretary Mona Keijzer informed the House of Representatives about the imminent franchise legislation. The National Franchise Guide previously published this article.

By Jeroen Sterk|28-05-2018|Categories: Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: |

On the edge of a franchisee’s exclusive territory

The Court of Appeal of Arnhem-Leeuwarden ruled on 15 May 2018, ECLI:NL:GHARL:2018:4395, on the question whether a franchisor has a branch just over the edge of the exclusively granted protection area.

Can a franchisee cohabit with a competing entrepreneur?

Can a franchisee violate a non-compete clause by cohabiting with someone who runs a competing business? On January 12, 2018, the District Court of Central Netherlands ruled

Not an exclusive catchment area, but still exclusivity for the franchisee

The judgment of the District Court of Noord-Holland dated 18 April 2018, ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2018:3268, ruled on the exclusivity area of ​​a franchisee.

Go to Top