Franchising course for Netlaw
Franchising course for Netlaw
On February 2, 2011 , Mr. Th.R. Ludwig a course for Netlaw, a partnership of various law firms in the Netherlands. The following topics will be discussed during the course: pre-contractual phase – forecasts – franchisor’s duty of care – code of honor – regulations under development.
Exclusive areas – active and passive franchisee sales opportunities – regulations regarding recommended prices / maximum prices – non-compete clauses – non-solicitation clauses.
Dispute settlements – arbitration clauses – mediation – binding advice.
Confluence of various legal areas, including agency, wft et cetera.
The course is held in Utrecht and is open to all attorneys affiliated with Netlaw.
Mr Th.R. Ludwig – Franchise lawyer
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