The Bottom Line
- Misrepresentation Voids Agreements: Presenting false professional qualifications, such as claiming to be a lawyer, constitutes fraud under Dutch law, giving clients the right to annul the entire service contract.
- Work Performed Doesn’t Matter: If a contract is voided due to fraud, any payments made must be refunded in full. The court deemed it irrelevant whether the service provider had actually performed some work; the fraudulent basis of the agreement nullified any claim to payment.
- Online Presence Creates Liability: Your company’s website and social media profiles are considered key evidence. In this case, the provider’s self-description as a “lawyer/expert” online was a critical factor in the court’s finding of intentional deceit.
The Details
The case brought before the District Court of Midden-Nederland involved a client who hired a service provider to assist with a legal procedure, paying a fee of €580. The client specifically sought a lawyer and, based on the provider’s communications and online profile, believed she had hired one. After the provider became unresponsive, the client discovered the individual was not a registered lawyer and immediately moved to annul the contract and demand a full refund. The provider refused, arguing that she had performed other services for the fee.
The court sided unequivocally with the client, finding that the agreement was induced by fraud. Under Dutch law, fraud occurs when a party is moved to enter a contract by an intentionally false statement or a deliberate concealment of facts. The court pointed to key evidence: the client’s initial app message explicitly requested a “lawyer,” a request the provider affirmed without correction. Furthermore, the provider’s website and social media accounts presented her as a “lawyer/expert,” and she discussed applying for legal aid—a step typically taken by a lawyer—which reinforced the deceptive narrative.
The legal consequence of this finding was stark. A contract formed through fraud is voidable. The client’s action to annul the agreement was therefore valid and had a retroactive effect, meaning the contract was treated as if it had never existed. This rendered the provider’s defense—that she had completed some work—entirely irrelevant. Since there was no legal basis for the payment, it was ordered to be returned in full, along with statutory interest and the client’s legal costs. The ruling serves as a powerful reminder that the foundation of any commercial agreement must be built on trust and accurate representation.
Source
Rechtbank Midden-Nederland
