Does the obligation to provide evidence (the claim to submit documents by
\n a counterparty) for displaying a (franchise) agreement in a
\n procedure, when the parties to the proceedings have no legal relationship with the
\n (franchise) agreement? The District Court of Limburg ruled in a judgment
\n incident on July 8, 2020 of no.<\/p>\n
\n In this case there is a dispute between two joint venture partners,
\n who fundamentally disagree about the purchasing policy of the
\n franchise organization in which they participate as a shareholder. As a result
\n both parties initiate various proceedings against each other. Because
\n the existence of the franchise agreement used by the organization ter
\n comes into question, but it has not been brought into question, the one advances
\n joint venture partner of the other that becomes the franchise agreement
\n submitted. The claim is based, inter alia, on the basis of the
\n obligation to exhibit pursuant to Article 843a Rv. An important element in this matter
\n is that the agreements regarding, among other things, the purchasing policy are already at stake
\n have been brought.\n<\/p>\n
\n Pursuant to Article 843a DCCP, a party can inspect or a
\n request copies of documents held by another person. This
\n possibility arises from the right of inspection of an interested party
\n side. In this case, the plaintiff believes that the defendant has done so
\n is mandatory, because the (franchise) agreement would be the subject of the proceedings
\n are. However, the court finds in the present case that the
\n the defendant party merely invokes the existence of the
\n (franchise) agreement, but not on its content. The existence of the
\n (franchise) agreement is apparently not in dispute now the claimant
\n submission thereof, without any reservation as to its existence
\n of them.\n<\/p>\n
\n For a successful appeal to Article 843a paragraph 1 Rv there must be
\n a private deed or other documents regarding a legal relationship
\n in which the plaintiff or his legal predecessor is a party. To have a
\n legally relevant interest is not sufficient according to the Supreme Court in her
\n judgment of 18 February 2000, ECLI:NL:HR:2000:AA4877. The court is of
\n judgment that in this case it has not been shown that neither plaintiff nor defendant
\n are a party to the (franchise) agreement now that they are in the joint venture
\n participating in two separate companies. The joint venture itself is
\n of course it is a party to the (franchise) agreement, but it is, however
\n not subject of the claim herein. As far as plaintiff and defendant
\n claiming to be a party to the (franchise) agreement is that in this
\n connection insufficient. They must themselves be a party to the
\n legal relationship and they are not here.\n<\/p>\n
\n Plaintiff’s claims are dismissed in the incident and she is dismissed
\n ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings and subsequent costs.\n<\/p>\n
\n It is therefore important to determine whether the litigant complies with the
\n legal requirements for a justified appeal to the obligation to provide information.
\n This judgment shows that the party itself<\/u> has a legal relationship
\n to the (franchise) agreement. It is therefore of great importance
\n to check that all legal requirements have been complied with before
\n the claim is filed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
mr. C. Damen \u2013 franchise lawyer\n<\/p>\n