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
The manager (employee) who becomes a franchisee – fictitious employment?
On 14 December 2016, the subdistrict court judge of the District Court of Noord-Holland, ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2016:11031 (Employee/Espresso Lounge), considered the situation in which an employee
The Supreme Court sets strict requirements for franchise forecasts
A ruling by the Supreme Court on Friday casts a new light on the provision of profit and turnover forecasts to aspiring franchisees.
Infringement of exclusive service area by franchisor in connection with formula change dated February 27, 2017
On 30 January 2017, the provisional relief judge of the District Court of Noord-Holland, ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2017:688 (Intertoys/franchisee), was asked how to deal with the
Forecasts at startup franchise formula
The Amsterdam Court of Appeal ruled on 14 February 2017, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:455 (Tot Straks/franchisee) on the question whether the franchisor had provided an unsatisfactory prognosis and whether the
Mandatory transfer of franchise business to franchisor?
On January 23, 2017, the District Court of Amsterdam, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2017:412 (CoffeeCompany/Dam Spirit BV) rendered a judgment on the question whether a franchisee upon termination of the cooperation
Transfer customer data to franchisor
In its judgment of 10 January 2017, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:68 (OnlineAccountants.nl), the Amsterdam Court ruled, among other things, on the question of how customer data should be transferred.