Ludwig & Van Dam attorneys summon Sandd and PostNL on behalf of the Sandd franchisees – dated 9 January 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Association of Franchisees of Sandd (VFS) has today summoned Sandd and PostNL before the court in Arnhem. The VFS believes that Sandd and PostNL are letting the franchisees down hard. The franchise agreements are no longer fulfilled in the meantime, with all the dramatic consequences that entails. The VFS asks the court to rule that Sandd is in default and that both Sandd and PostNL are responsible for the damage suffered by the franchisees as a result.
The franchisees are systematically ignored.
Sandd and PostNL had been planning to join forces for some time. From the moment the franchisees became familiar with this, they have always asked what their position would be. The VFS franchisees serve more than 20% of Sandd’s network. These SME companies employ approximately three thousand mail deliverers and approximately four hundred and fifty employees.
When State Secretary Mona Keijzer approved the merger, the franchisees were therefore surprised that their position had not been taken into account. They are therefore challenging the conditions of the merger license at the Rotterdam District Court. That procedure is still ongoing. See the press release of November 12, 2019.
After the merger license, the franchisees were not informed until November 5 that the franchise activities will stop completely at the beginning of 2020. There was no solution for the franchisees at that time. Although the franchisees at Sandd and PostNL kept knocking afterwards, there is still no concrete plan. Chairman Mario de Koning of the VFS: “State Secretary Mona Keijzer had completely disregarded the franchisees in the merger permit, while it is precisely with the proposed Franchise Act that she wants to strengthen the position of franchisees against franchisors. Now that Sandd and PostNL are also ignoring the interests of the franchisees, the franchisees, including their employees, are left out in the cold.”
The VFS has the impression that it is trying to play the franchisees off against each other. De Koning: “Divide and conquer. The VFS has proposed principles for determining the damage. Sandd wants to circumvent those basic principles by forcing other basic principles through the individual franchisees. You put pressure on a franchisee to sign a contract with different principles for determining damages. The rest will follow automatically. We want to prevent that.”
Now that the position of the franchisees is not taken seriously, the franchisees are forced to go to court. They want recognition of Sandd’s default and PostNL’s unlawful actions, in order to arrive at an adequate solution.
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
Franchise Closing Sale – Who Gets the Sale Proceeds?
The judgment of the District Court of the Northern Netherlands dated 12 October 2016, ECLI:NL:RBNNE:2016:5061 (Administrator/Expert Group and Rabobank), focused on the question whether the franchisor, together with the bank,
Column Franchise+ – mr. Th.R. Ludwig: “Judge: franchisor’s duty of care comparable to that of a bank”
Various judgments in 2016 made it clear how high the standard of care for a franchisor towards its franchisees is.
Use of the internet and social media: court expands options for franchisees
In principle, the franchisee may not be prohibited from having its own website in order to also or even exclusively sell its products or services via the Internet.
Article in Entrance: “Plan damage”
“Because the municipality undertakes and renovates all sorts of things in the vicinity of my business, I have a disadvantage and I suffer damage. Can I tell those stories?"
Article in Entrance: “Rules of Fragrance”
“I am bothered by the smell that the adjacent catering business produces. Can I do something about this?"
Supermarket letter – 16
1. Buy/Sell Albert Heijn Franchise