The State Secretary submitted a bill to the House of Representatives on 9 July 2020
\n Chamber that, in short, means that the retailer may not be bound
\n to unilateral changes to opening hours, during the term of
\n the agreement. The bill was prompted to ease the pressure
\n on the SME of, in particular, property owners, shopkeepers’ associations and the
\n chain stores to have to keep longer opening hours,
\n by unilateral amendments to the rental agreement. <\/p>\n
\n It is remarkable that this is now frequently and explicitly stated in the explanatory memorandum
\n it is noted that this prohibition also applies to franchisors who
\n would unilaterally oblige franchisees to change their opening hours
\n change, invoking unilateral power to change the
\n franchise agreement. In the explanatory memorandum, the
\n rental agreement referred to in the same breath as the franchise agreement. If
\n the law is passed, the franchisee may decide that amended
\n to disregard opening hours, if not already mentioned in the
\n concrete agreements have been made about goods when entering into the franchise agreement.
\n \n<\/p>\n
\n The bill therefore offers a substantial addition to legal protection
\n of franchisees in relation to the recently passed Franchise Act.
\n \n<\/p>\n
\n Recently, a large portion of Domino’s franchisees are resisting
\n even without this law successfully against the franchisor
\n mandatory lunch opening. However, they could rely on it
\n lack of unilateral power of amendment. After the introduction of this law also enjoy
\n franchisees, who are bound by a unilateral agreement
\n amendment clause, this additional legal protection. Even if they are not renting.
\n For franchisors, it becomes even more important when entering into the
\n franchise agreement to make good agreements about the opening hours of
\n the franchise location. In view of the broad scope, this law is expected to
\n support base, almost certainly as flexible as the Franchise Act through it
\n parliament are piloted, although this is contrary to the Act
\n franchise has received little publicity attention.
\n \n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
mr. J. Sterk \u2013 franchise lawyer
\n \n<\/p>\n