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

Column Franchise+ – mr. J Sterk: “Court orders fast food chain to extend franchise agreement

The case is set to begin this year. For years, the franchisee has been refusing to sign the new franchise agreement that was offered with renewal, as it would lead to a deterioration of his legal position

By Jeroen Sterk|01-09-2017|Categories: Dispute settlement, Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , |

Not a valid non-compete clause for franchisee

On 18 November 2016, the interim relief judge of the Central Netherlands District Court, ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2016:7754, rendered a judgment in the issue concerning whether the franchisee was held

Franchise & Law No. 5 – Acquisition Fraud and Franchising Act

The Acquisition Fraud Act came into effect on 1 July 2016. This includes amendments to Section 6:194 of the Dutch Civil Code.

By Ludwig en van Dam|10-08-2017|Categories: Dispute settlement, Forecasting issues, Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , , |

Does a franchisee have to accept a new model franchise agreement?

On 31 March 2017, the District Court of Rotterdam, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2017:2457, ruled in interlocutory proceedings on the question whether franchisor Bram Ladage had complied with the franchise agreement with its franchisee.

Mandatory (market-based) purchase prices for franchisees

To what extent can a franchisor change agreements about the (market) purchase prices of the goods that the franchisees are obliged to purchase?

Director’s liability of a franchisee after failing to rely on an unsound prognosis.

On 11 July 2017, the Court of Appeal of 's-Hertogenbosch made a decision on whether the franchisor could successfully sue the director of a BV for non-compliance with the

Go to Top