When does a franchisor go too far when recruiting franchisees?

In the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Arnhem-Leeuwarden on 5 February 2019,  ECLI:NL:GHARL:2019:1024 the issue was whether the franchisor had acted impermissibly when recruiting the franchisees. The franchisor, Otto Simon, was accused of persuading the franchisees to enter into a franchise agreement for the exploitation of the Top1Toys through misleading texts on the franchisor’s website.

The franchisees are particularly concerned with the following passages on the website:

–     “(…) the toy store with the best price level!”
–     “As a Top1Toys entrepreneur, you are able to realize this best price level because you benefit from international purchasing advantages because you buy at the source.”
–     “Although as an independent entrepreneur you do business for your own account and risk, joining Otto Simon means the full support of a professional and strong organization.”
–     “You are provided with all the tools for such a business so that you can concentrate on the store, the range, your employees, but above all on your customer.”
–     “Meanwhile, the business advice department has prepared a marketing report and an investment and operating budget. With this information you can go to the bank to apply for financing.”
–     “The location is chosen from the available ‘white spot plan’ and, again depending on the module, must contain at least 5,000, 15,000 or 100,000 inhabitants.”

The franchisees emphasized that the franchisor is the expert in this case and that they could simply rely on the statements on the website.

The Court finds that the text on the franchisor’s website is aimed at potential franchisees and that therefore the assessment of whether this publication is misleading must be based on the knowledge and imagination of an averagely informed and observant (prospective) entrepreneur. The average commercial public should be aware of, and therefore not be influenced by, the fact that advertising often has a certain exaggeration. Against the background of those principles, the court does not consider the statements on the website of the franchisor to be misleading.

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

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.

Termination or dissolution of the franchise agreement by the franchisee

In principle, franchise agreements can be terminated prematurely, for example by cancellation or dissolution. On 21 March 2018, the District Court of Overijssel ruled on ECLI:NL:RBOVE:2018:1335 on

Go to Top