In a recent case before the Court of Appeal of ...
Recommendations by the franchisor in general terms are permitted – dated March 6, 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The boundary between praise in general terms on the one hand and culpable deception and misrepresentation on the other remains a difficult issue.
A ruling on whether the franchisor had made a misrepresentation when recruiting a franchisee.
The judgment of the Court of Appeal of Arnhem-Leeuwarden on 5 February 2019 dealt with whether the franchisor had acted impermissibly when recruiting the franchisees.
The District Court of Limburg ruled on 6 April 2017, ECLI:NL:RBLIM:2016:2843, that the franchisor has a duty of care towards the prospective franchisee in the pre-contractual phase.
The District Court of The Hague ruled on 21 March 2018, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2018:3348, that a franchisor's forecast was unsound, as a result of which the franchisee had erred and the franchisor
The Amsterdam Court of Appeal ruled on 14 February 2017, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:455 (Tot Straks/franchisee) on the question whether the franchisor had provided an unsatisfactory prognosis and whether the
No special duty of care franchisor
Court of Appeal upholds misrepresentation and wrongful conduct in the event of an unsatisfactory prognosis
The franchisee claimed annulment of the franchise agreement on the grounds of error, because the franchisor allegedly presented an unsatisfactory prognosis.
Gathering evidence for faulty prognosis