Franchise agreement negotiations broken off
The District Court of Gelderland ruled on 6 May 2015 (ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2015:4708) on the question of whether a prospective franchisee and a franchisor had reached such a level of negotiation that the franchisor could no longer withdraw without being liable for damages.
The aspiring franchisee claims compensation on the basis of an unlawful act, consisting of – simplified – (i) the costs it had to incur in the context of the negotiation process (the negative contractual interest) and (ii) lost profit (the positive contract interest).
It has been established that the parties have negotiated the conclusion of a franchise agreement. The franchisor had stated at a very early stage that 9 steps would have to be taken in order to eventually become a franchisee. Step 5 is considered a provisional approval.
The aspiring franchisee goes through a number of steps, including training. Step 5, the provisional approval, is postponed. There does seem to be follow-up steps, but these appear to have been taken expressly at the urgent request of the prospective franchisee, while the franchisor has never indicated that it changed or intended to change the procedure in connection with this or that otherwise the importance of the provisional approval (step 5) was lost.
One of the next steps involved the location of the franchise location. The standard franchise agreement apparently assumed a branch in the Netherlands, while the prospective franchisee (also) proposed a branch location in Germany. The fact that the franchisor provided a standard franchise agreement does not mean that the franchisor was inclined to enter into deviating franchise agreements, which will be as well known in the relevant industry for large franchisors as the present one if it is known ex officio to the court, is common.
The shares in the franchisor are also taken over by another party. The new policy is that there will be no new franchisees. The franchisor also indicates that it no longer wishes to negotiate further with the prospective franchisee.
The court finds that the franchisor could not reasonably have given the prospective franchisee the impression at any time that she waived or wanted to waive the usual steps of the franchise process, in combination with the fact that there were actual deviations from this. The claim of the positive contract interest is rejected.
The court also sees no grounds for compensation of the negative contractual interest. After all, the fact that the procedure has continued, that the franchisee has been nominated to follow the training and that research has been done into suitable locations, has all happened, according to the witness statements and the documents submitted, because the aspiring franchisee wanted to speed up the procedure . This possibly led – the franchisor disputes this – to costs, while the franchisor was generally passive.
In negotiation processes between a franchisor and a prospective franchisee, mutual coordination and communication are of great importance in order to avoid disputes. Any reservations must be communicated at the earliest possible stage and must be repeated over and over again. In this way, mutual expectations can be managed and procedures such as these can be prevented.
Mr AW Dolphijn – Franchise lawyer
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice. Do you want to respond? Mail to dolphijn@ludwigvandam.nl
Other messages
Does a franchisee have to accept a new model franchise agreement?
On 31 March 2017, the District Court of Rotterdam, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2017:2457, ruled in interlocutory proceedings on the question whether franchisor Bram Ladage had complied with the franchise agreement with its franchisee.
Mandatory (market-based) purchase prices for franchisees
To what extent can a franchisor change agreements about the (market) purchase prices of the goods that the franchisees are obliged to purchase?
Director’s liability of a franchisee after failing to rely on an unsound prognosis.
On 11 July 2017, the Court of Appeal of 's-Hertogenbosch made a decision on whether the franchisor could successfully sue the director of a BV for non-compliance with the
Liability accountant for prepared prognosis?
In a judgment of the Court of Appeal of 's-Hertogenbosch of 11 July 2017, ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2017:3153, it was discussed that franchisees accused the franchisor's accountant of being liable
How far does the bank’s duty of care extend?
Some time ago the question was raised in case law what the position of the bank is in the triangular relationship franchisor – bank – franchisee.
Burden of proof reversal in forecasting as misleading advertising?
In an interlocutory judgment of 15 June 2017, the District Court of Zeeland-West-Brabant, ECLI:NL:RBZWB:2017:3833, ruled on a claim for (among other things) suspension of the non-compete clause.