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
Fine for franchisor because aspiring franchisee is foreigner
On 5 July 2017, the Council of State, ECLI:NL:RVS:2017:1815, decided whether, in the case of (proposed) cooperation between a franchisor and a prospective franchisee, the franchisor
Article in Entrance: “Company name”
“I came up with a wonderful name for my catering company and incurred the necessary costs for this. Now there is another entrepreneur who is going to use almost the same one. Is that allowed?"
The bank’s duty of care in franchise agreements
On 23 May 2017, the Court of Appeal in The Hague, EQLI:NL:GHDHA:2017:1368, had to rule on the question whether the bank should have warned a prospective franchisee in connection with the
Article in Entrance: “Standing up”
“Can I fire an employee with immediate effect if he steals something trivial, such as food that has passed its expiration date?”
Arbitration clause in franchise agreement sometimes inconvenient
On 20 July 2016, the District Court of Gelderland, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2016:4868, ruled on the validity of an agreement in a franchise agreement, whereby disputes would be settled
Supermarket letter – 18
Can an entrepreneur be obliged to operate a different supermarket formula?