Indemnification II – Failed Forecasts
A special form of indemnification consists of exoneration clauses that attempt to indemnify the franchisor against incorrect forecasts. Most of the clauses in this framework are so absolute and rigid in nature that they are legally powerless. The court passes such clauses more than once effortlessly, because of the completely unreasonably onerous nature of the clause, or because the rigid clause in question no longer bears any relation to the culpability of the franchisor, in case there is there is actually conscious, deliberate reinforcement of incorrect forecasts.
Is nothing possible at this point? Anyway. A nuanced exoneration can indeed protect the franchisor against incorrectly provided forecasts. However, such a nuanced regulation is based on a number of elements:
– both the franchisor and the franchisee are involved in the location survey, from which the forecasts are derived;
– the franchisee is advised to convince himself of the correctness of the forecasts, for example by engaging a professional adviser who is not the franchisor’s adviser;
– the franchisor does not exclude its liability, but limits it to clearly incorrect information provided.
This creates a nuanced approach, in which both franchisor and franchisee take on a shared responsibility. Such an approach promotes the franchisee’s obligation to investigate, whereby the franchisor’s duty of care is substantiated and nuanced. Such a regulation becomes even stronger if the franchisor and franchisee also include in the regulation how to deal with each other in the unlikely event that a significant deviation from reality in relation to the forecast nevertheless emerges. If the parties still cannot reach an agreement and legal proceedings actually take place, a court will indeed detain the conduct of the parties against the nuanced regulation, as included in the franchise agreement.
Ideally, the franchisor and franchisee will strive to achieve clarity about this in advance and should actually behave accordingly in the pre-contractual phase – and afterwards.
Ludwig & Van Dam franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice

Other messages
Column Franchise+ – mr. J. Sterk – “Franchisee does body check better than franchise check”
A gym embarks on a franchise concept that offers “Body Checks” and discounts to (potential) members in collaboration with health insurers.
Seminar Mrs. J. Sterk and M. Munnik – Thursday, November 2, 2017: “Important legal developments for franchisors”
Attorneys Jeroen Sterk and Maaike Munnik of Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten will update you on the status of and developments surrounding the Dutch Franchise Code and the Acquisition Fraude Act.
Goodwill at end of franchise agreement
In a case before the Amsterdam Court of Appeal on 26 September 2017, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:3900 (Seal & Go), a franchisee claimed compensation for goodwill (ex Article 7:308 of the Dutch Civil Code) after the
Article in Entrance: “Resignation”
Fire an employee who is not performing well? The subdistrict court is strict. If you, as an employer, cannot demonstrate that you have done everything yourself to make the person function better, it will be
Cost price that is too high as a hidden franchise fee
An interlocutory judgment of the District Court of The Hague dated 30 August 2017, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2017:10597 (Happy Nurse) shows that the court has considered the question whether the
Supermarket letter – 19
Coop liability for damages due to non-performance towards the franchisee



