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.

mr. A.W. Dolphijn
Ludwig & Van Dam lawyers, franchise legal advice.
Do you want to respond? Then email to dolphijn@ludwigvandam.nl

Other messages

Franchisor wrongly hinders internet sales by franchisee – dated September 19, 2018 – mr. AW Dolphin

Franchisor wrongly hinders internet sales by franchisee

Preferential right of purchase in lease does not apply – September 7, 2018 – mr. AW Dolphin

Preferential right of purchase in a rental agreement does not apply

Transfer of business with ‘preferred supplier’ of franchisees

On 13 June 2017, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal ruled in interlocutory proceedings, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:2144, on the question whether employees of a 'preferred supplier' of the

By Alex Dolphijn|07-08-2018|Categories: Dispute settlement, Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , |
Go to Top