Distribution agreement or agency agreement: find the differences
Court of The Hague
The court in The Hague recently ruled whether there was a distribution agreement (this could be a franchise agreement, for example) or an agency agreement. Under Dutch law, the distinction between a distribution agreement (franchise agreement and an agency agreement) mainly lies in the fact that an agent mediates purely on behalf of his principal (client) in the conclusion of the agreements between the principal and the customer, while a distributor (franchisee) on the other hand, purchases products in its own name and for its own account and risk and then resells them.
The distinction is very important in connection with numerous legal obligations that apply to an agent, where they do not automatically apply to a distributor (franchisee), unless the franchisee and franchisor have arranged this in their franchise agreement. If there is mediation between the agent (this can also be a franchisee) and, as stated above, the principal (client, the company in question) and the consumer, under certain circumstances there is also a claim to legal goodwill upon termination of the contract. the contract between the agent and the principal. This is fundamentally different with a distribution agreement, where this legal right is absent. When the distribution agreement or agency agreement is terminated, other rights and obligations arise for the parties. Incidentally, in practice it appears that the systems can also go together. For example, there is a franchise agreement with agency elements or vice versa. This is very well possible, although the franchisee / agent and the franchisor / principal must make various choices with regard to their contract options. The choices are thereby limited, since not all agency provisions can be set aside by law, if this were desirable at all. In this case, the court ruled that there was a distribution agreement, which can have various consequences for the parties in the eventual settlement of their relationship in the long term.
Mr Th.R. Ludwig – Franchise attorney
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice Would you like to respond? Mail to ludwig@ludwigvandam.nl
Other messages
Franchisee obliged to cooperate with formula change?
On 24 March 2017, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2017:1860, the preliminary relief judge of the Amsterdam District Court once again considered the issue in which Intertoys wishes to convert Bart Smit's stores
Delivery stop by franchisor not allowed
On 9 February 2017, the preliminary relief judge of the District Court of Gelderland, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2017:1372, ruled that a franchisor had not fulfilled its obligation to supply the franchisee
Alex Dolphijn in the Financial Dagblad about the judgment of the Supreme Court regarding Street-One
Franchisors more liable for incorrect forecasts Franchisees can now more easily hold their parent organization liable for incorrect profit and turnover forecasts.
Supermarket letter – 17
Supreme Court: More quickly liable for forecasts
Article in Entrance: “Small print”
“When I do business with a supplier, I never read the fine print. Recently I noticed that there are all kinds of things in it that I actually do not agree with.
Column Franchise+ – mr. Th.R. Ludwig: “Delivery stop by franchisor again not allowed”
Once again, the president in preliminary relief proceedings ruled on the question whether a franchisor's supply stop against the franchisee was permitted, with the franchisee paying a substantial