The franchisee successfully appeals for error as a result of the forecast provided by the franchisor
Court of Utrecht
The court in Utrecht recently ruled in favor of a franchisee who argued during the court case that his franchisor had provided him with inadequate operating forecasts when entering into the franchise agreement. According to these forecasts, the franchisee could realize an acceptable turnover. The opposite turned out to be true – the franchisee achieved virtually no turnover. Nevertheless, after the early termination of the franchise agreement, the franchisor claims payment of (missed) fees from this franchisee and institutes legal proceedings.
However, the franchisee invokes error in the lawsuit; had he known how the proverbial ‘fork’ would really be ‘in the stem’, he would not have concluded the franchise agreement with the franchisor. The court accepts the defense and points out – among other things – that there is such a big difference between what the franchisor has forecast and what the franchisee has achieved in terms of turnover. Nor is it disputed by the franchisor that other franchisees also fail to meet the forecasts provided. The franchisor also apparently used historical data, even though this data dates from before the credit crisis. All this is reason for the court to assume that the forecasts provided by the franchisor are not sound.
The previous ruling ‘fits in’ completely with the line that the Supreme Court set almost 10 years ago and which has already been discussed several times in these articles. A franchisee must be able to rely on the accuracy of the forecasts provided to him by a franchisor. It obliges the franchisor to provide information based on sound grounds. Since the franchisee’s decision whether or not to participate in a particular franchise formula will largely depend on the return that can be achieved from the operation, this is without doubt justified.
Mr JH Kolenbrander – Franchise lawyer
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice Would you like to respond? Mail to coalbrander@ludwigvandam.nl
Other messages
The further determination of the rental price of business premises at the request of the lessor/franchisor or the lessee/franchisee
Does the (sub)tenant/franchisee still pay a competitive rent for the leased business space?
Partial indebtedness of entrance fees due to lack of turnover and non-delivery of contractual performance by the franchisor
The franchisee rightly invokes unforeseen circumstances due to the lack of turnover and successfully claims moderation of the entrance fee due.
Termination of the franchise agreement does not automatically lead to termination of the sublease agreement
Franchisor terminated the franchise agreement with the franchisee. The franchise agreement stipulated that termination of the franchise agreement would also terminate the sublease agreement
Despite the franchisee’s counterclaim, the franchisor justified dissolution of the franchise contract
The Rotterdam court recently ruled that payment arrears of more than € 80,000 is sufficient for the franchisor to dissolve the franchise agreement.
Actually using a building, but without a lease
In franchising, it often happens that the business premises from which the franchisee operates his business
Switching franchisee from one franchise organization to another is not without risks
The court in Amsterdam recently ruled in a case where a franchisee switched from one franchisor to another, in the same industry.