This annotation was written for HERO and was published on their website (HERO 2026 / N-018).

Background

Two holding companies each held 50% of the shares in a joint holding structure controlling a mortgage advice and franchise business. In 2022, one shareholder sold 10% of its stake to the other for EUR 1.8 million. The notarial deed of transfer contained a disclosure warranty and a waiver clause under which the parties waived the right to rescind or set aside the underlying purchase agreement. A separate shareholders' agreement contained a penalty clause and an arbitration clause.

When relations deteriorated, the seller claimed payment of the outstanding purchase price and management fees. The buyer counterclaimed for: (i) a judicial price adjustment under Article 6:230(2) DCC on grounds of mistake; (ii) termination of the management agreement; and (iii) a declaration of personal liability of the seller's director.

Central question: Does the waiver clause bar an Article 6:230(2) claim?

The court interpreted “the agreement underlying the transfer” as covering the sale and purchase agreement (SPA), not merely the proprietary act of delivery. A narrower reading would have rendered the clause meaningless, since annulment of the SPA could still unwind the transfer.

The pivotal legal finding is that Article 6:230(2) DCC has an accessory nature: the power to modify a contract exists only where a right to set aside that contract also exists. Because the buyer had contractually waived the right to annul on grounds of mistake, no basis remained for a judicial price adjustment. The claim was dismissed.

Drafting implications

The annotation highlights that a broad interpretation is risky. A waiver clause mentioning only annulment and rescission leaves room for argument that Article 6:230(2) falls outside its scope – particularly given the Haviltex standard, which ties contractual meaning to the parties' mutual intent.

Best practice

Draft the waiver clause to expressly exclude:

The right to set aside the agreement (annulment/rescission); and
The right to claim amendment of the contract's consequences under Article 6:230(2) DCC.

An explicit reference removes uncertainty, especially in contracts between professionally acting parties (cf. Supreme Court, 5 April 2013, ECLI:NL:HR:2013:BY8101).

Limits of waiver clauses

Where the ground for error amounts to fraud under Article 3:44(3) DCC, a contractual exclusion of annulment may be void on grounds of public policy (Article 3:40 DCC). Similarly, where one party had exclusive access to information, reliance on a waiver clause may be unacceptable under the reasonableness and fairness standard of Article 6:248(2) DCC.

Information warranties between co-shareholders

The court dismissed the buyer's reliance on the information warranty. As a 50% shareholder and co-director, the buyer had equal access to the relevant information. Information warranties within the same information circle carry limited weight unless tailored to risks genuinely beyond one party's reach.

Set-off and arbitration

The buyer sought to set off penalty claims under the shareholders' agreement against the seller's payment claims. The court refused. Under Article 6:127(2) DCC, set-off requires the counterclaim to be sufficiently established. Since jurisdiction over the penalty claims lay exclusively with the arbitral tribunal, the court could not rule on their existence or extent.

A legitimate defence was thus procedurally blocked by the parties' own choice of forum. Where related agreements have different dispute resolution mechanisms, set-off rights must be explicitly addressed to avoid this deadlock.

Directors' personal liability

The personal liability claim against the seller's director was dismissed. Under established Dutch case law (Zandvliet/ING), personal liability requires serious personal fault. The director's refusal to pay reflected a substantive legal position rather than wilful disregard of the company's obligations. Non-payment alone – even in an escalating conflict – does not suffice to pierce the corporate veil.

Key takeaways for acquisition practice

Waiver clauses must go further: Explicitly exclude Article 6:230(2) in addition to annulment and rescission to foreclose any judicial price adjustment.

Information warranties need specificity: In co-shareholder transactions, generic disclosure warranties add little; the buyer must identify precisely which information was outside its reach.

Set-off across forums: Where related agreements carry an arbitration clause, contractually regulate set-off rights or exclude them outside the designated forum.

Directors' liability is exceptional: Even persistent non-payment does not automatically trigger personal liability – the threshold of serious personal fault remains high.

District Court The Hague, 04 March 2026,ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2026:4945

Milad Hamidy since 2020 has been admitted at the Dutch Bar and is a court-appointed trustee specialised in financing, securities, and insolvency. He helps entrepreneurs and investors navigate restructurings, insolvency disputes, distressed mergers and acquisitions, and bankruptcy-proof contracts with clear, pragmatic advice.

Layla Verhagen was admitted to the Dutch bar in 2017. She advises on M&A, company law, professional liability and shareholder disputes. She specialises in dispute resolution and inquiry proceedings, combining thorough legal analysis with business insight to effectively prevent and resolve conflicts.

publications

IP risk doesn't end with the company: Personal liability in intellectual property disputes

GCG Deal Announcement | Hyde Park Capital advised No Cow and Good Karma Foods

GCG Deal Announcement | Hyde Park Capital advises GOHUNT

Polish Deposit System: What Businesses and Consumers Need to Know