Between the franchisor’s diagnosis and forecasting duty
In the leading legal scientific journal WPNR, Mr. Dolphijn a contribution in which forecasts in franchise disputes are discussed.
With the Franchise Act, the legislator did not want to introduce a forecasting obligation, but an obligation to provide certain relevant available information to the intended franchisee in the pre-contractual phase. The intended franchisee must provide financial information for this purpose, which the franchisor must examine. One could speak of a duty of diagnosis on the part of the franchisor. This should be distinguished from a duty to forecast, but how big is this distinction?
The article is entitled “Between the diagnosis and forecasting obligation of the franchisor” and published in WPNR 7341 (2021) dated October 2, 2021 on p. 729 to 741 and can be ordered from the publisher via the following link: https:// wpnr-knb.sdu.nl/node/13635
Ludwig & Van Dam lawyers, franchise legal advice.
Do you want to respond? Then email to dolphijn@ludwigvandam.nl
Other messages
Market and location research: more important than you think
Market and location research: more important than you think
Jurisdiction of the subdistrict court judge in cases of miscarriage (II)
As indicated earlier on this website, different judges judge in different ways whether they are competent to take cognizance of a dispute in which both prognosis problems
Goodwill on transfer from a supermarket
A franchisor and a franchisee lay down the agreements they make for their cooperation in a franchise agreement.
The supermarket entrepreneur himself determines the choice formula after acquiring ownership of the property
In the displacement market of supermarkets, those who have access to their own retail premises often determine which formula may be used.
Increase in franchise fee for existing and new franchise contracts
Increase in franchise fee for existing and new franchise contracts
Unlawful termination of dealer agreement
The Court of Appeal in The Hague recently ruled in a case in which an importer and distributor of a car brand had terminated an agreement with one of its dealers.