The standstill period does not apply
On 17 August 2022, the District Court of Overijssel, ECLI:NL:RBOVE:2022:2385, settled a matter in which, among other things, the question was whether the legal standstill period should have been observed. The standstill period means that the franchisor provides all relevant information to the intended franchisee at least four weeks prior to the conclusion of the franchise agreement. If this has not happened, the concluded franchise agreement may be invalid.
The court rules that, although the agreement qualifies as a franchise agreement, there is no violation of the statutory standstill period. The legal standstill period for franchise agreements, as part of the so-called ‘Franchise Act’, came into force on 1 January 2021 and, on the basis of transitional law, became (largely) immediately applicable on the same date. The franchise agreement in this matter was concluded on November 21, 2020. This means that, even if the standstill period was not observed, it was not yet required by law at the time the franchise agreement was concluded. The court ruled that the franchise agreement was validly concluded.
Ludwig & Van Dam lawyers, franchise legal advice.
Do you want to respond? Then email to dolphijn@ludwigvandam.nl

Other messages
Timely addressing parties in case of problems
What to do if you notice irregularities in your franchise relationship? It's always a consideration.
Possible pitfalls of a starting franchisee
Starting a business on the basis of "franchising" is in.
Franchise council: necessity or wisdom?
When developing a franchise organization, the usefulness and necessity of a franchise council is invariably discussed.
Pre-agreement, letter of intent
A so-called pre-agreement is occasionally concluded before entering into a franchise agreement.
What to look for when selling the franchisee’s business? Common interests and practical tips
If the franchisee wishes to sell his company, a number of things should be taken into account.
Operating problems shopping centres: position of tenant different from that of franchisee
Our highest court, the Supreme Court, recently ruled on the question