The Amsterdam Court of Appeal ruled on January 21, 2020,
\n ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2020:116, which is the information provided by a franchisor
\n about increasing turnover, cost savings, more clientele and customer loyalty
\n is too general in nature to invoke acquisition fraud or error
\n make it succeed. There is no question of deception by the franchisor and the
\n The (prospective) franchisee cannot be blamed by the franchisor for this
\n wrong leg.<\/p>\n
\n In that context, it has also been ruled that a potential franchisee is allowed
\n be expected to know that the franchise formula is focused on business
\n as revenue increase and cost savings, but that concrete results of
\n depend on many circumstances, such as, for example, the manner
\n on which the franchisee conducts his business.\n<\/p>\n
\n It is true that, if the franchisor has concrete information about
\n turnover forecasts and the like, he acts unlawfully if he does so
\n information is incorrect and he knows this, or his carelessness leads to
\n which led to errors. The court refers to the judgment
\n HR 24-02-2017, ECLI:NL:HR:2017:311 regarding Street One. In this case it is
\n however, such concrete information is not provided by the franchisor
\n provided. That is also stated in the agreement in so many words, it said
\n court of justice.
\n \n<\/p>\n
\n The boundary between praise in general terms and
\n on the other hand, culpable deception and misrepresentation,
\n remains a tricky issue.\n<\/p>\n
\n mr. AW Dolphijn \u2013 franchise lawyer\n<\/p>\n
\n Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice. Want
\n you respond?\n<\/p>\n