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
Interests Association of Franchisees of the Netherlands (BVFN) is in further consultation with the Minister
On April 16, 2014, the previously announced meeting between the Belangen Vereniging Franchisenemers Nederland (BVFN) and the Ministry of Economic Affairs took place.
Exoneration of duty of care with the franchisor’s prognosis
In a judgment of the Overijssel court of 9 April 2014, the interesting question arose whether a collaboration should be qualified as a franchise.
Non-competition clause is lost in summary proceedings
Recently, the preliminary relief judge in Rotterdam ruled that a franchisee was not bound by the non-competition clause included in the franchise agreement.
Advance on compensation after an unsound prognosis
In a beautifully substantiated summary judgment of the Northern Netherlands Court of 9 April 2014, the question was whether an advance should be paid for the damage assessment procedure.
Collection point requires shopping destination
In my supermarket newsletter of July 11, 2013, I already predicted that the establishment of collection points for goods ordered via the internet would set the judicial pens in motion.
Developments and sales via the internet.
Developments and sales via the internet.