Compensation for reputational damage to the franchisor
The District Court of Amsterdam ruled on 3 October 2018, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2018:7830, on the question of whether reputational damage should be compensated to a franchisor if a third party damages the reputation of the franchise system, for which franchisees complain to the franchisor .
A developer of a digital platform for a franchisor had provided a platform that any third party could access. The franchisor claims that it has suffered reputational damage because business information of the franchisor has literally become public, as a result of which it has come to be seen in an unprofessional light in relation to, among others, its franchisees. Franchisees are also said to have complained to the franchisor that the proposed quality improvement was not achieved. The franchisor is claiming compensation of € 25,000 from the developer of the platform for reputational damage.
This concerns a claim within the meaning of Article 6:106 paragraph 1 sub b of the Dutch Civil Code: “For a disadvantage that does not consist of financial loss, the injured party is entitled to compensation to be determined in fairness if the injured party (…) in his honor or reputation has been damaged (…)”. The court that awards compensation on the basis of Article 6:106 of the Dutch Civil Code has a discretionary power with regard to determining the amount of that compensation. The court may take all circumstances of the case into account when estimating the damage and it has the authority, if it considers there are grounds to do so, not to award compensation (cf. Supreme Court 27 April 2001, ECLI:NL:HR :2001:AB1337, NJ 2002/91).
In the opinion of the court, too little has been argued for the existence of reputational damage, or at least: what has been asserted does not carry enough weight to – if true – be regarded as damage eligible for compensation within the meaning of the law. Even if it were to be ruled that the allegation does weigh heavily enough to consider compensation to be awarded in principle, that compensation would in the present case be set at zero on grounds of fairness, because according to the court the intentions of the developer were good and that it had no intent or gross negligence for the reputational damage.
Reputation and goodwill are of great importance to the franchisor and their formula. It appears once again that preventing damage is very important, because recovering reputational damage can be difficult.
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
On the edge of a franchisee’s exclusive territory
The Court of Appeal of Arnhem-Leeuwarden ruled on 15 May 2018, ECLI:NL:GHARL:2018:4395, on the question whether a franchisor has a branch just over the edge of the exclusively granted protection area.
Can a franchisee cohabit with a competing entrepreneur?
Can a franchisee violate a non-compete clause by cohabiting with someone who runs a competing business? On January 12, 2018, the District Court of Central Netherlands ruled
Not an exclusive catchment area, but still exclusivity for the franchisee
The judgment of the District Court of Noord-Holland dated 18 April 2018, ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2018:3268, ruled on the exclusivity area of a franchisee.
Supermarket letter – 23
AH may not reduce wages when taking over personnel from AH franchisees;
Termination or dissolution of the franchise agreement by the franchisee
In principle, franchise agreements can be terminated prematurely, for example by cancellation or dissolution. On 21 March 2018, the District Court of Overijssel ruled on ECLI:NL:RBOVE:2018:1335 on
Article in Entrance: “Sending mailings”
“Can I make a file of guests' email addresses because I occasionally want to inform them online about events, promotions and new dishes?”