Franchisor liable for errors made by a franchisee? – mr. AW Dolphijn – dated November 23, 2020
A franchise organization of mortgage brokers requested the court to declare that the franchisor is not liable for the fact that a franchisee has committed a serious error, or at least committed fraud with a customer. The District Court of Amsterdam ruled in this case on November 4, 2020, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2020:5408.
Mortgage brokers are supervised by the AFM and require a licence. The franchisor is the central license holder in this matter and has a collective license (Section 2:105 Wft). The individual franchisees then act under the responsibility of the franchisor. However, the franchisor stated that this does not mean that the franchisor is then in all cases liable for errors made by the franchisee.
The court rules that the franchisor can be liable, in addition to the franchisee, for an error on the part of the franchisee if that error is caused by the affiliated company not complying with the aforementioned licensing obligations and requirements. For example, if a franchisee does not comply with the licensing requirements and third parties suffer damage as a result, this can lead to liability of the franchisor towards that third party.
In this case, the franchisor’s claim to establish that the franchisor was not liable was formulated too broadly.
This ruling provides more guidance on the extent to which a franchisor under a collective license could be liable for errors and fraud by franchisees.
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
End of main lease does not mean end of sublease with franchisee
On 7 July 2015, the Court of Appeal in Den Bosch overturned a judgment of the District Court of Limburg on the concurrence of a franchise agreement and a sublease agreement.
Chronicle Jurisprudence Franchise Law 2014
Chronicle Jurisprudence Franchise Law 2014
Attorneys Ludwig & Van Dam look back on transition process C1000
Attorneys Ludwig & Van Dam look back on transition process C1000
Court of Appeal upholds misrepresentation and wrongful conduct in the event of an unsatisfactory prognosis
The franchisee claimed annulment of the franchise agreement on the grounds of error, because the franchisor allegedly presented an unsatisfactory prognosis.
Directors’ Liability Concerning Franchising: Deception or Collaboration Plan
Directors' Liability Concerning Franchising: Deception or Collaboration Plan
Jumbo completes the C1000 conversion operation in more than 1100 days
Jumbo completes the C1000 conversion operation in more than 1100 days