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
Franchisor fails by invoking a non-compete clause
Although a non-compete clause is validly formulated in a franchise agreement, a situation may arise that is so diffuse that the franchisor cannot invoke it.
Acquisitions and Franchise Interest
It will not have escaped anyone's attention, certainly in the last year it can only be concluded that the Dutch economy is once again on the rise.
Which court for a rental and franchise agreement?
Which court is competent to rule on a related rental and franchise agreement?
Interview Franchise+ – mrs. J. Sterk and AW Dolphijn – “Reversal burden of proof in forecasts honored by court”
The new Acquisition Fraud Act indeed appears to be relevant for the franchise industry, according to this article from Franchise+.
Franchisor convicted under the Acquisition Fraud Act
For the first time, a court has ruled, with reference to the Acquisition Fraud Act, that if a franchisee claims that the franchisor has presented an unsatisfactory prognosis
Agreements Related to the Franchise Agreement
On 31 October 2017, the Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal issued similar judgments for nineteen franchisees (ECLI:NL:GHARL:2017:9453 through ECLI:NL:GHARL:2017:9472).