Acquisition fraud vs. error in franchise forecasting
Who has to prove that the franchisor’s forecast is unsound? In principle, this is the franchisee. If the franchisee invokes the Acquisition Fraud Act, the burden of proof may be reversed. In that case, the franchisor, and therefore not the franchisee, will have to prove that the prognosis issued was not misleading.
The Amsterdam Court of Appeal ruled that the reversal of the burden of proof under the Acquisition Fraude Act does not also apply to an appeal by the franchisee on the basis of error. See Amsterdam Court of Appeal 16 January 2018, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2018:123. In the first instance, the franchisee had only invoked error to no avail. See District Court of Noord-Holland 27 February 2017, ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2017:1590.
If there is a mistake, there does not have to be an unlawful act on the part of the franchisor. In error, the franchisee claims that he entered into the franchise agreement in the event of a misrepresentation. It is important that the franchisor is involved in the occurrence of that mistake or misunderstanding. A wrongful act occurs when an error has been committed. Acting by the franchisor in violation of the Acquisition Fraud Act constitutes an unlawful act.
A franchisee who believes that the prognosis presented is unsound, should think carefully about how to approach this.
mr. AW Dolphijn – franchise lawyer
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice. Do you want to respond? Go to dolphijn@ludwigvandam.nl .
Other messages
Delivery obligation?
Many buyers, including franchisees, are of the opinion that there is a delivery obligation in the Netherlands, meaning that suppliers are obliged to deliver goods if a potential
Internet in franchise relationships
If, in the context of a franchise relationship, internet and e-commerce are discussed in order to sell the goods/services of the franchise organization digitally
Use of telephone and fax numbers after the
Most franchise agreements stipulate that after termination of the franchise agreement, the former franchisee must comply with a non-competition clause.
Recent developments regarding resale price maintenance
On February 13, 2004, the administrative judge of the District Court of Rotterdam rendered a judgment between Secon Group BV
Reinvestment / restyling within an existing franchise concept.
In practice, we have recently seen more and more developments that point to a conversion/restyling of the franchise organization
Agency: some outlines
In practice, questions are asked with some regularity regarding the legal nature