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
The manager (employee) who becomes a franchisee – fictitious employment?
On 14 December 2016, the subdistrict court judge of the District Court of Noord-Holland, ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2016:11031 (Employee/Espresso Lounge), considered the situation in which an employee
The Supreme Court sets strict requirements for franchise forecasts
A ruling by the Supreme Court on Friday casts a new light on the provision of profit and turnover forecasts to aspiring franchisees.
Infringement of exclusive service area by franchisor in connection with formula change dated February 27, 2017
On 30 January 2017, the provisional relief judge of the District Court of Noord-Holland, ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2017:688 (Intertoys/franchisee), was asked how to deal with the
Forecasts at startup franchise formula
The Amsterdam Court of Appeal ruled on 14 February 2017, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:455 (Tot Straks/franchisee) on the question whether the franchisor had provided an unsatisfactory prognosis and whether the
Mandatory transfer of franchise business to franchisor?
On January 23, 2017, the District Court of Amsterdam, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2017:412 (CoffeeCompany/Dam Spirit BV) rendered a judgment on the question whether a franchisee upon termination of the cooperation
Transfer customer data to franchisor
In its judgment of 10 January 2017, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:68 (OnlineAccountants.nl), the Amsterdam Court ruled, among other things, on the question of how customer data should be transferred.