Void franchise agreement due to violation of standstill period
What are the consequences if the standstill period is violated? This was ruled on in a judgment of the Belgian Court of Cassation of June 2, 2023 (C.22.0408.N). This Belgian case is also important for Dutch legal practice, as the regulation on the standstill period in the Franchise Act (Article 7:914 of the Dutch Civil Code) is based on Belgian regulations (Article X.27 WER). See House of Representatives, session year 2019–2020, 35 392, no. 3, p. 9 and 34.
Under Belgian law, in a period prior to the conclusion of the franchise agreement, a contract may not be entered into with the franchisee that could be disadvantageous for the intended franchisee. If this does happen, the franchise agreement concluded subsequently could be null and void.
A franchisee of the Belgian supermarket formula Carrefour had prematurely ceased the operation of his company due to persistent losses. The predetermined turnover forecast was not achieved. The franchisor demanded payment of the outstanding rental invoices. In its counterclaim, the franchisee relied on the nullity of the franchise agreement, because the franchise agreement had already been signed too soon after the pre-contractual information had been provided.
The court of appeal ruled that the franchisor was not only obliged to make restitution but also to make full compensation for the damage suffered by the franchisee as a result of the void agreements. The franchisor appealed against this.
However, the Court of Cassation of Belgium confirmed that with the annulment of the franchise agreement, a related rental agreement is also annulled. It was also confirmed that in addition to the refund of the amounts paid by the franchisee to the franchisor, the franchisee can additionally claim compensation for damages, as failure to observe the standstill period is a mistake (an unlawful act) on the part of the franchisor. This includes costs incurred by the franchisee in terms of investments and energy.
According to Belgian law, the violation of the standstill period also appears to imply unlawful conduct that entitles the right to compensation for damage, in addition to the obligation to repay franchise fees paid to the franchisor. It is not inconceivable that the Dutch court will rule in a similar manner in such cases.
Ludwig & Van Dam lawyers, franchise legal advice.
Do you want to respond? Then email to dolphijn@ludwigvandam.nl
Other messages
The benchmark for franchise forecasts – dated 29 May 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
On 19 March 2019, the Den Bosch Court of Appeal, ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2019:1037, listed the case law of the Supreme Court on prognosis in franchising.
Franchise arbitration: too high a threshold? – mr. M. Munnik
When entering into an agreement, it is possible for the parties - contrary to the law - to designate a competent court. This also applies to the franchise agreement. Of this possibility
Franchise appeal for error due to incorrect forecasts and lack of support rejected – dated April 25, 2019 – mr. K. Bastian
The Court of Appeal of 's-Hertogenbosch ruled (ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2019:697) on the question whether the mere fact that forecasts did not materialize justifies the conclusion that the franchisee has been shortchanged...
Article De Nationale Franchise Gids: “Increasing protection against recruiting franchisees” – dated 2 April 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
It is becoming increasingly apparent that recruited franchisees can be protected on the basis of the Acquisition Fraud Act.
The Franchise Association and Franchise Binding – Contracting 2019, No. 1
A contribution on common provisions in franchise agreements that require a franchisee to be a member of a franchisee's association.
Deception in recruiting a franchisee?
A ruling on whether the franchisor had made a misrepresentation when recruiting a franchisee.