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
Fine for franchisor because aspiring franchisee is foreigner
On 5 July 2017, the Council of State, ECLI:NL:RVS:2017:1815, decided whether, in the case of (proposed) cooperation between a franchisor and a prospective franchisee, the franchisor
Article in Entrance: “Company name”
“I came up with a wonderful name for my catering company and incurred the necessary costs for this. Now there is another entrepreneur who is going to use almost the same one. Is that allowed?"
The bank’s duty of care in franchise agreements
On 23 May 2017, the Court of Appeal in The Hague, EQLI:NL:GHDHA:2017:1368, had to rule on the question whether the bank should have warned a prospective franchisee in connection with the
Article in Entrance: “Standing up”
“Can I fire an employee with immediate effect if he steals something trivial, such as food that has passed its expiration date?”
Arbitration clause in franchise agreement sometimes inconvenient
On 20 July 2016, the District Court of Gelderland, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2016:4868, ruled on the validity of an agreement in a franchise agreement, whereby disputes would be settled
Supermarket letter – 18
Can an entrepreneur be obliged to operate a different supermarket formula?