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
Infringement of non-competition clause, where is the limit?
In this matter, a former freelancer of massage parlor Doctor Feelgood started his own massage parlor under the name Feelgood-store.
Research into numbers of franchise procedures
We recently published a brief survey of franchise jurisprudence over the past six years on the website.
Violation of duty of care affects exoneration
In a dispute about an appeal to an exoneration clause in the franchise agreement by the franchisor, it was considered that the nature of the franchise agreement should be taken into account
Supermarket letter – 5
Acquisition of a supermarket location by terminating the lease at the expense of the sitting tenant is allowed by the Supreme Court.
Acquisition of a supermarket location by terminating the lease at the expense of the sitting tenant is allowed by the Supreme Court
On 25 April 2014, the Supreme Court confirmed for the second time that the waiting period of three years for termination of the rental agreement for retail space due to urgent personal use after the purchase of the property
Unauthorized unilateral collective fee increase by the franchisor
In an important decision of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal of 23 April 2014, the question was whether a franchisor was allowed to implement an increase in a contribution.