Franchise Frühstück Consultants House GmbH
Franchise-Frühstück Consultants House GmbH
Tonisvorst (Krefeld)
On February 20, 2011, Mr. DL van Dam was invited to participate in a “Franchise Frühstück”, organized by Consultants House GmbH, Mr. Jörg Eckhold, one of the leading franchise consultants in Germany. At issue was cross-border franchising, in particular from Germany to the Netherlands. Various German franchisors were present. The topics included:
European law aspects – competition – the relationship between German and Dutch franchise agreements – differences between German and Dutch law – obtaining financing in the Netherlands – how to deal with turnover and result forecasts – the pre-contractual relationships in general – differences in mentality between Germany and the Netherlands.
The Franchise Frühstück took place in Tönisvorst, near Krefeld, and started at 10 am.
Mr DL van Dam – Franchise lawyer
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice Would you like to respond? Mail to vandam@ludwigvandam.nl
Other messages
Supermarket letter – 22
No Dutch Franchise Code, but legislation on franchising.
No Dutch Franchise Code, but legislation on franchising
The State Secretary has announced that the Dutch Franchise Code ("NFC") will not be enshrined in law. However, there will be legislation on franchising.
HEMA sentenced to suspend e-commerce contribution to franchisees
HEMA is in conflict with its franchisees about the contribution to e-commerce costs. HEMA believes that the existing scheme from 1997 is outdated.
Error or deception in the conclusion of the franchise agreement
A franchisee who regrets after entering into a franchise agreement may believe that before or at the conclusion of the franchise agreement by the franchisor ...
Supermarket letter – 21
Judge: Protect franchisee against supermarket organization (Coop) as lessor
The supplier prescribed by the franchisor is not performing? What now?
The Court of Appeal of 's-Hertogenbosch ruled on 20 February 2018, ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2018:727, on the question of who must prove that the franchisee was misled when entering into the