Every forecasting issue is different
It is not always easy to prove that a franchisee has actually been misled by a franchisor in providing a forecast. A good example of this are the rulings on prognosis disputes that Biretco has had with franchisees.
In a judgment of 15 June 2016, ECLI:NL:RBZWB:2016:3723, the District Court of Zeeland-West-Brabant formed a judgment on a dispute between a franchisee and Biretco as franchisor. In previous court cases, Biretco had bitten the dust, see for example the District Court of Zeeland-West-Brabant in a judgment of 8 July 2015, ECLI:NL:RBZWB:2015:6952 and the judgment of the Court of Appeal of ‘s-Hertogenbosch 12 March 2013, ECLI :EN:GHSHE:2013:BZ4057. In this case, the franchisee has been put in the wrong.
The franchisee accused the franchisor, among other things, of having presented an unsatisfactory prognosis. However, the operating overview presented by the franchisor consists of historical data supplied by the franchisee. The court is of the opinion that neither unsubstantiated figures nor forecasts are involved. There is therefore no question of an incorrect statement by the franchisor, or at least a failure to provide information.
Also with regard to a presentation of key financial figures, the court is of the opinion that the key figures only concern a calculation of the gross profit margin that could be achieved with a certain sales mix. According to the court, the franchisee had not provided sufficient evidence to conclude that Biretco made unfounded statements to the franchisee, let alone forecasts.
The franchisee also alleged that it had not provided sufficient care and assistance when it turned out that the forecasts had not come true. However, the franchisor has argued that it tried to support the franchisee in its business operations by drawing up a plan of action. The franchisor also argued that it provided bi-weekly support to the franchisee through an account counselor. The court then ruled that the franchisee had not sufficiently proven that the franchisor had violated its duty of care.
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
Interests Association of Franchisees of the Netherlands (BVFN) is in further consultation with the Minister
On April 16, 2014, the previously announced meeting between the Belangen Vereniging Franchisenemers Nederland (BVFN) and the Ministry of Economic Affairs took place.
Exoneration of duty of care with the franchisor’s prognosis
In a judgment of the Overijssel court of 9 April 2014, the interesting question arose whether a collaboration should be qualified as a franchise.
Non-competition clause is lost in summary proceedings
Recently, the preliminary relief judge in Rotterdam ruled that a franchisee was not bound by the non-competition clause included in the franchise agreement.
Advance on compensation after an unsound prognosis
In a beautifully substantiated summary judgment of the Northern Netherlands Court of 9 April 2014, the question was whether an advance should be paid for the damage assessment procedure.
Collection point requires shopping destination
In my supermarket newsletter of July 11, 2013, I already predicted that the establishment of collection points for goods ordered via the internet would set the judicial pens in motion.
Developments and sales via the internet.
Developments and sales via the internet.