Legal qualification of cooperation
In a judgment of 15 September 2015 (ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2015:3847), the Amsterdam Court of Appeal clarified that the legal definition of a collaboration is leading for the question of how the collaboration can be legally qualified. In this case, the question was whether there was an agency agreement. This is important because the law contains a number of mandatory statutory provisions for agency agreements, including the manner in which the collaboration is terminated and the agent’s right to a client fee.
The Court of Appeal considers that an agency agreement (according to the definition given in Article 7:428 of the Dutch Civil Code) is an agreement in which one party (the principal) instructs the other party (the commercial agent) to mediate against remuneration for a definite or indefinite period of time in the conclusion of agreements between the principal and clients without being subordinate to the principal. The mere fact that purchase agreements were concluded between the principal and third parties through the involvement of one party (referred to by him as intermediation) does not in itself imply that the agreement between the parties must be regarded as an agency agreement. After all, it is not characteristic of an agency agreement that the contractor mediates in the conclusion of agreements between its client and a third party, but precisely that the contractor is in principle only remunerated (by means of receiving commission) if and insofar as his involvement, agreements between the principal and third parties are concluded.
Regardless of the name of a cooperation between two trading partners, the legal definitions will be the starting point. Designations such as dealer agreement, partner agreement, franchise agreement, affiliation agreement, reseller agreement, cooperation agreement, distribution agreement, etc., legal qualification remains paramount.
mr. AW Dolphijn – Franchise lawyer
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice. Do you want to respond? Mail to dolphijn@ludwigvandam.nl
Other messages
A recurring problem in operation: Forecasts not achieved
A recurring problem in operation: Forecasts not achieved
Franchisee sentenced to pay fine after violation of non-competition clause
The parties have entered into a franchise agreement which relates to assisting divorces. The franchise agreement is terminated by the franchisee.
Non-competition clause unreasonably onerous
Non-competition clause unreasonably onerous
Ludwig & Van Dam main sponsor partner National Franchise Congress 4 October 2012
The world goes on. And it seems to be getting faster and faster. It took 130,000 years before we invented the steam engine around 1750.
Failure to provide the data underlying the forecasts will justify dissolution
Failure to provide information on which the forecasts are based is possible
Non-competition clause in the franchise agreement should not be lightly brushed aside due to (alleged) incorrect forecasting and non-performance and/or reasonableness and fairness
The Court of Appeal of 's-Hertogenbosch recently ruled on the question whether a franchisee is