Franchisors take note: accountability for forecast issued – December 28, 2015 – mr. AW Dolphin
Court of Appeal of ‘s-Hertogenbosch, dated 15 September 2015, ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2015:3583
A judgment by the ‘s-Hertogenbosch Court of Appeal raised the question of who must now demonstrate that the franchisor’s prognosis was or was not sound. See Court of Appeal of ‘s-Hertogenbosch 15 September 2015, ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2015:3583 (To Fuel/franchisee).
The franchisor has a formula called To Fuel, aimed at operating shops at petrol stations. Entrepreneurs can become franchisees through so-called partner agreements. The franchisee accused the franchisor of having drawn up an incorrect forecast regarding the expected turnover/profit. It was objected to the franchisor that, due to errors in forecasting, the franchisee was in error. The main rule is that in that case the franchisee will have to provide proof of those errors. Sometimes the franchisee will have only a vague suspicion that something is wrong with the forecast. The Court of Appeal extends a helping hand to the franchisee here.
The forecast was based on the number of visitors to the gas station, the number of visitors to the shop and the average spending at a shop. The Court of Appeal orders the franchisor to provide further evidence of the correctness of the figures used on these three aspects. The franchisor must therefore account for the way in which it made forecasts. The assertion that visitor numbers are based on empirical figures must also be further substantiated by the franchisor, for example by submitting annual accounts or an auditor’s report.
If it appears from the account given that the prognosis contains errors, the appeal to error may succeed. The Court of Appeal adds that it does not matter whether the errors can be attributed to the franchisor itself or to one or more third parties (HR 25 January 2002, ECLI:NL:HR:2002:AD7329, legal ground 3.3.2). .
Although in principle the burden of proof of an unsatisfactory prognosis lies with the franchisee, the franchisor will have to provide insight into how the prognosis was arrived at. This means that it is important for franchisors to be able to provide sound numerical justification for the prognosis issued.
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
Damage estimate after wrongful termination of the franchise agreement by the franchisor
In a judgment of the Supreme Court of 15 September 2017, ECLI:NL:HR:2017:2372 (Franchisee/Coop), it was discussed that supermarket organization Coop had not complied with agreements, as a result of which the franchisee
Franchisor is obliged to extend the franchise agreement
On 6 September 2017, the Rotterdam District Court ruled, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2017:6975 (Misty / Bram Ladage), that the refusal to extend a franchise agreement by a franchisor
The (in)validity of a post-contractual non-competition clause in a franchise agreement: analogy with employment law?
On 5 September 2017, the District Court of Gelderland, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2017:4565, rendered a judgment on, among other things, the question of whether Bruna, as a franchisor, could invoke the prohibition for a
Column Franchise+ – mr. J Sterk: “Court orders fast food chain to extend franchise agreement
The case is set to begin this year. For years, the franchisee has been refusing to sign the new franchise agreement that was offered with renewal, as it would lead to a deterioration of his legal position
Not a valid non-compete clause for franchisee
On 18 November 2016, the interim relief judge of the Central Netherlands District Court, ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2016:7754, rendered a judgment in the issue concerning whether the franchisee was held
Franchise & Law No. 5 – Acquisition Fraud and Franchising Act
The Acquisition Fraud Act came into effect on 1 July 2016. This includes amendments to Section 6:194 of the Dutch Civil Code.