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
Does a franchisee have to accept a new model franchise agreement?
On 31 March 2017, the District Court of Rotterdam, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2017:2457, ruled in interlocutory proceedings on the question whether franchisor Bram Ladage had complied with the franchise agreement with its franchisee.
Mandatory (market-based) purchase prices for franchisees
To what extent can a franchisor change agreements about the (market) purchase prices of the goods that the franchisees are obliged to purchase?
Director’s liability of a franchisee after failing to rely on an unsound prognosis.
On 11 July 2017, the Court of Appeal of 's-Hertogenbosch made a decision on whether the franchisor could successfully sue the director of a BV for non-compliance with the
Liability accountant for prepared prognosis?
In a judgment of the Court of Appeal of 's-Hertogenbosch of 11 July 2017, ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2017:3153, it was discussed that franchisees accused the franchisor's accountant of being liable
How far does the bank’s duty of care extend?
Some time ago the question was raised in case law what the position of the bank is in the triangular relationship franchisor – bank – franchisee.
Burden of proof reversal in forecasting as misleading advertising?
In an interlocutory judgment of 15 June 2017, the District Court of Zeeland-West-Brabant, ECLI:NL:RBZWB:2017:3833, ruled on a claim for (among other things) suspension of the non-compete clause.