Vacancy lawyer-employee
Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten is a law firm that specializes entirely in franchise and other partnerships and is the market leader of its kind in the Netherlands. The office has extensive knowledge and experience and is characterized by a high level of thinking and working. Due to growth of the practice, we are looking for a:
Attorney-at-law
Specific experience in the franchise practice is a plus.
We offer a working environment where you can work and develop in an excellent and relaxed collegial atmosphere. Some relevant work experience is desirable.
Information can be requested from Mr. DL van Dam, e-mail address: vandam@ludwigvandam.nl, mr. J. Sterk e-mail address:sterk@ludwigvandam.nl or mr. AW Dolphijn, e-mail address: dolphijn@ludwigvandam.nl, to whom the application letter can also be addressed.
Other messages
Franchisee obliged to cooperate with formula change?
On 24 March 2017, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2017:1860, the preliminary relief judge of the Amsterdam District Court once again considered the issue in which Intertoys wishes to convert Bart Smit's stores
Delivery stop by franchisor not allowed
On 9 February 2017, the preliminary relief judge of the District Court of Gelderland, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2017:1372, ruled that a franchisor had not fulfilled its obligation to supply the franchisee
Alex Dolphijn in the Financial Dagblad about the judgment of the Supreme Court regarding Street-One
Franchisors more liable for incorrect forecasts Franchisees can now more easily hold their parent organization liable for incorrect profit and turnover forecasts.
Supermarket letter – 17
Supreme Court: More quickly liable for forecasts
Article in Entrance: “Small print”
“When I do business with a supplier, I never read the fine print. Recently I noticed that there are all kinds of things in it that I actually do not agree with.
Column Franchise+ – mr. Th.R. Ludwig: “Delivery stop by franchisor again not allowed”
Once again, the president in preliminary relief proceedings ruled on the question whether a franchisor's supply stop against the franchisee was permitted, with the franchisee paying a substantial