Article Mr. C. Damen – “When does the obligation to provide proof apply for the submission of the franchise agreement?” dated August 17, 2020

By Published On: 17-08-2020Categories: Statements & current affairs

Does the obligation to provide evidence (the claim to submit documents by
a counterparty) for displaying a (franchise) agreement in a
procedure, when the parties to the proceedings have no legal relationship with the
(franchise) agreement? The District Court of Limburg ruled in a judgment
incident on July 8, 2020 of no.

In this case there is a dispute between two joint venture partners,
who fundamentally disagree about the purchasing policy of the
franchise organization in which they participate as a shareholder. As a result
both parties initiate various proceedings against each other. Because
the existence of the franchise agreement used by the organization ter
comes into question, but it has not been brought into question, the one advances
joint venture partner of the other that becomes the franchise agreement
submitted. The claim is based, inter alia, on the basis of the
obligation to exhibit pursuant to Article 843a Rv. An important element in this matter
is that the agreements regarding, among other things, the purchasing policy are already at stake
have been brought.

Pursuant to Article 843a DCCP, a party can inspect or a
request copies of documents held by another person. This
possibility arises from the right of inspection of an interested party
side. In this case, the plaintiff believes that the defendant has done so
is mandatory, because the (franchise) agreement would be the subject of the proceedings
are. However, the court finds in the present case that the
the defendant party merely invokes the existence of the
(franchise) agreement, but not on its content. The existence of the
(franchise) agreement is apparently not in dispute now the claimant
submission thereof, without any reservation as to its existence
of them.

For a successful appeal to Article 843a paragraph 1 Rv there must be
a private deed or other documents regarding a legal relationship
in which the plaintiff or his legal predecessor is a party. To have a
legally relevant interest is not sufficient according to the Supreme Court in her
judgment of 18 February 2000, ECLI:NL:HR:2000:AA4877. The court is of
judgment that in this case it has not been shown that neither plaintiff nor defendant
are a party to the (franchise) agreement now that they are in the joint venture
participating in two separate companies. The joint venture itself is
of course it is a party to the (franchise) agreement, but it is, however
not subject of the claim herein. As far as plaintiff and defendant
claiming to be a party to the (franchise) agreement is that in this
connection insufficient. They must themselves be a party to the
legal relationship and they are not here.

Plaintiff’s claims are dismissed in the incident and she is dismissed
ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings and subsequent costs.

It is therefore important to determine whether the litigant complies with the
legal requirements for a justified appeal to the obligation to provide information.
This judgment shows that the party itself has a legal relationship
to the (franchise) agreement. It is therefore of great importance
to check that all legal requirements have been complied with before
the claim is filed.


mr. C. Damen – franchise lawyer

Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice. Want
you respond? Go to

Other messages

Ludwig & Van Dam in Distrifood about the future of independent supermarket entrepreneurs

However, many retailers are now at a loss due to ...

No standstill period for prior collaboration based on the same formula

On December 29, 2023, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2023:20931, the District Court of The ...

Go to Top