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
Column Franchise+ – mr. J. Sterk – “Franchisee does body check better than franchise check”
A gym embarks on a franchise concept that offers “Body Checks” and discounts to (potential) members in collaboration with health insurers.
Seminar Mrs. J. Sterk and M. Munnik – Thursday, November 2, 2017: “Important legal developments for franchisors”
Attorneys Jeroen Sterk and Maaike Munnik of Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten will update you on the status of and developments surrounding the Dutch Franchise Code and the Acquisition Fraude Act.
Goodwill at end of franchise agreement
In a case before the Amsterdam Court of Appeal on 26 September 2017, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:3900 (Seal & Go), a franchisee claimed compensation for goodwill (ex Article 7:308 of the Dutch Civil Code) after the
Article in Entrance: “Resignation”
Fire an employee who is not performing well? The subdistrict court is strict. If you, as an employer, cannot demonstrate that you have done everything yourself to make the person function better, it will be
Cost price that is too high as a hidden franchise fee
An interlocutory judgment of the District Court of The Hague dated 30 August 2017, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2017:10597 (Happy Nurse) shows that the court has considered the question whether the
Supermarket letter – 19
Coop liability for damages due to non-performance towards the franchisee