The bank’s duty of care in franchise agreements
On 23 May 2017, the Court of Appeal in The Hague, EQLI:NL:GHDHA:2017:1368, had to rule on the question whether the bank should have warned a prospective franchisee in connection with the financing arrangement that the bank had concluded with the franchisor . After all, on that basis the bank should have been aware of the deplorable financial situation of the franchisor and should therefore warn the franchisee about this when entering into the long-term credit and franchise agreement.
After entering into the franchise agreement with the franchisor and the credit agreement with the bank, the franchisee has not fulfilled the obligations under the credit agreement. The bank subsequently terminated the credit agreement with the franchisee. The franchisor also went bankrupt, after which the bank took the franchisee to court in order to collect the outstanding credit. The franchisee defended himself and took the view that the bank should have warned the franchisee about the poor financial position of the franchisor, since the cause of the payment arrears to the bank is the fact that the franchisor was insolvent.
The Court of Appeal ruled that the bank, as a lender, in principle has a duty of care aimed at protecting the franchisee against its own carelessness and lack of insight, which depends on the franchisee’s own experience and expertise. The Court of Appeal rules that it has not been established that the bank knew or should have known at the time of entering into the credit agreement and the franchise agreement that the financial position of the franchisor was unsustainable and/or that the franchise chain was not (or no longer) viable . What also plays a role is that it has not become apparent that the prospective franchisee asked the bank questions about the franchisor’s financial position at the time. The court therefore concludes that the bank must be paid by the franchisee. Although the bank has a duty of care towards a franchisee (as a borrower), the bank cannot conceal what the bank does not know.
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
Article Franchise+ – “Immediate information obligations of franchisors upon operation of the Franchise Act” – mr. AW Dolphijn – dated June 25, 2020
As soon as the Franchise Act enters into force, this will have an immediate effect on franchise agreements that already exist. The question is whether the information flows are set up optimally from a legal point of view.
Senate will adopt Franchise Act – dated 24 June 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The House of Representatives had unanimously adopted the proposal to introduce the Franchise Act on 16 June 2020
Franchise Act passed by the House of Representatives – dated 16 June 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Franchise Act was adopted by the House of Representatives on 16 June 2020.
Sandd franchisees find satisfaction in nullifying Sandd and PostNL merger – dated 12 June 2020
The franchisees of mail delivery company Sandd went to court in November, assisted by Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten. Court of Rotterdam rules on takeover by PostNL.
Plenary debate dated June 9, 2020 in the Lower House of the Franchise Act – dated June 10, 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
On 9 June 2020, the legislative proposal for the Franchise Act was discussed in plenary in the House of Representatives. An amendment and a motion have been tabled.
Franchising is “a bottleneck in tackling healthcare fraud” – dated 10 June 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
According to the various supervisory authorities in the healthcare sector, franchise constructions can be seen as a non-transparent business construction in which the supervision of professional and