The notification obligation under art. 7:418 of the Dutch Civil Code: when a mediator must reveal his own interest

Why this topic is relevant for startups and scale-ups

Startups and scale-ups regularly engage others to make deals possible. Think of advisors, brokers, brokers, platforms or other intermediaries who bring parties together, facilitate negotiations or help conclude contracts. This is especially attractive in growth phases: it saves time, opens doors and can increase commercial strength.

At the same time, there is a risk. Those who mediate often also have their own financial interest in continuing the transaction. That in itself should not be a problem. It only becomes exciting when that importance is not made clear, or when exactly how far that interest goes remains unclear. Then the question quickly arises whether the mediator is still only operating in the interests of the client, or whether other incentives are also involved.

Art. 7:418 of the Dutch Civil Code is important for exactly those kinds of situations. The provision protects clients against the contractor's hidden interests in a concrete legal act. The message is strict and practical at the same time: if you, as a mediator, have a direct or indirect interest in closing the deal, you should report this of your own accord. And not half, but completely.

Legislation, mediation and conflict of interest

In order to properly understand art. 7:418 of the Dutch Civil Code, it is useful to first have a clear distinction between mandate and mediation.

By mandate, the contractor undertakes to perform one or more legal acts on behalf of the client. The agent therefore acts legally on behalf of or on behalf of the client. The essence is that the agent is not only allowed to act, but is also obliged to do so.

This is different when it comes to mediation. In principle, the mediator does not perform legal acts for the client, but acts as an intermediary in concluding an agreement between the client and a third party. The activities are mainly factual. A mediator brings parties into contact with each other, exchanges information, organizes discussions and helps negotiations move forward. The mediator does not conclude the agreement himself, but does help make that agreement possible.

This distinction is legally relevant, but in practice, the lines are not always clear. That is why the rules on certain conflicts of interest in the regulatory regime also apply to mediation. This is an important point for startups and scale-ups. Even if a party presents itself as a “platform”, “introducer”, “deal advisor” or “commercial partner”, the legal reality may mean that there is mediation with the associated standards.

In this context, the law roughly distinguishes between three forms of conflict of interest.

Contract with yourself

The first form is the situation where someone acts on behalf of the client and is at the same time a contracting party himself. This is only allowed if the content of the legal act is established so precisely that a conflict of interest is actually excluded. If this is not the case, this affects the authority to act in that way.

Serving two gentlemen

The second form is to represent the interests of two different parties in the same transaction. This, too, is only possible in special circumstances, namely if the content of the legal act is established in such a way that conflicts between the interests of both parties are excluded. In many real negotiations, this will not be the case anytime soon. This is exactly where it matters, because a contractor should normally be biased to stand up for the interests of his client.

Another direct or indirect personal interest

The third form is broader and is often the most important in practice. This is the situation where the contractor has another direct or indirect interest in the conclusion of the legal act. That's what art. 7:418 of the Dutch Civil Code is about. Precisely because conflicts of interest can occur in many more ways than just double action or self-contracting, the legislator has opted for a broad protection rule.

What exactly art. 7:418 of the Dutch Civil Code requires

The essence of art. 7:418 of the Dutch Civil Code is simple, but the effect is far-reaching. If the contractor has a direct or indirect interest in a concrete legal act, he must inform the client. Only if the content of the legal act is established so precisely that conflict between the interests of the parties is excluded, that obligation does not apply.

That is an important nuance. The obligation to notify therefore does not only arise when it is established that one's own interest actually conflicts with the client's interest. That would make the protection too narrow. On the contrary, the client must be able to assess for himself whether he sees a conflict of interest, whether that conflict is acceptable to him and whether he still wants to be helped by the same contractor.

In doing so, art. 7:418 of the Dutch Civil Code consciously places the decision-making space with the client. It is not the mediator who decides whether his own interest is innocent enough to be left unmentioned. The client must have sufficient information to make an opinion about this himself.

This is a relevant starting point for startups and scale-ups. In growth companies, deals are often closed quickly, under time pressure and with limited internal legal capacity. Especially then, there is a great temptation to look primarily at the outcome and less at the position of the intermediary. Art. 7:418 of the Dutch Civil Code corrects that. Not only the deal matters, but also the transparency about the interests involved in that deal.

Full disclosure means more than reporting that “something” is being earned

One of the most important lessons is that general familiarity with the mediator's revenue model is not enough. The mere fact that a client understands that an intermediary makes money from something does not remove the obligation to notify. The exact nature and extent of the personal interest may also be relevant to the client's assessment.

This is particularly true when it comes to committee agreements. If the mediator earns a commission from the deal, it must not only be announced that there is a commission, but also how high that commission is. This line makes it clear that art. 7:418 of the Dutch Civil Code leaves no room for global or voluntary transparency. Openness must be sufficiently concrete to really enable the client to assess his position.

This is a strong signal for practice. So a mediator cannot hide behind arguments such as: the client knew we would earn something from this anyway, or: the amount of our compensation does not matter as long as the main deal is correct. The obligation to notify is precisely intended to provide the client with insight into the incentives that can influence the mediator's actions.

For tech companies, this is particularly relevant when it comes to structures where the intermediary receives a success fee, bonus, ongoing compensation or percentage of subsequent revenue. Even if those agreements are only formally established around the time of contracting, the underlying incentive may exist earlier and may therefore be notifiable. The focus is on your own interest in the concrete legal act.

No obligation to investigate for the client

Another important lesson is that the client does not have to investigate himself first. The obligation to notify lies with the mediator and must be fulfilled of your own accord. The client therefore does not have to ask the right questions first to deserve protection.

This is an essential point legally and practically. In many commercial relationships, information asymmetry exists. The mediator knows what agreements he has made with other stakeholders, what fees are available and what additional incentives exist. The client often does not know that, or only partially. In such a situation, if the law said that the client should have asked more, the protective function of art. 7:418 of the Dutch Civil Code would largely be lost.

Previous cooperation does not change that either. The fact that parties have done business with each other before and that the client knows that the mediator usually has a financial interest does not mean that a new transaction no longer has an obligation to notify. It is always about the importance of the concrete legal act. Every new deal must therefore be set against that bar again.

This is reassuring for startups and scale-ups. Routine quickly develops, especially in long-term relationships with external dealmakers or advisors. We then work on the basis of trust, speed and informal coordination. It is precisely in that setting that art. 7:418 of the Dutch Civil Code makes it clear that transparency should not be diluted. Even in an existing partnership, your own interest per transaction must be clearly on the table.

What are the consequences if that disclosure obligation is breached?

The sanctions for violating art. 7:418 of the Dutch Civil Code are severe. The legal act itself remains in force, but the violation of the duty to notify constitutes a breach of contract. In any case, this means that the contractor is not entitled to pay and can be liable for damages if the client suffers damage.

That is an important distinction. The law here does not primarily say that the deal is automatically void. The transaction can therefore continue to exist, while the contractor loses his claim for compensation and must compensate damage. Under circumstances, the agreement may also be annulled on the basis of a lack of will, but the core penalty of art. 7:418 of the Dutch Civil Code lies in the absence of wage law and the obligation to pay compensation.

It is also relevant that this regulation is mandatory. It is therefore not possible to deviate from it to the detriment of the client. For clients, this offers a firm lower limit. For mediators, this means that contractual formulations that try to weaken the standard are not a safe safety net.

For the practice of startups and scale-ups, the impact is clear. A mediator who thinks that limited transparency is commercially convenient is taking a serious legal risk. And the mirror image applies to clients: hidden commission interests don't just have to be accepted as something that comes with deals.

What does this mean in concrete terms for startups and scale-ups?

The legal line is clear, but the real value lies in the practical translation. For growing companies, art. 7:418 of the Dutch Civil Code works primarily as a reality check when engaging intermediaries.

If you are a client

If you work with a party that facilitates a deal, boosts negotiations or opens the route to a contract, it is wise to clarify exactly what role that party is acting in. Does that party only represent your interests, including those of the other party, or does it also have its own financial interest in concluding the agreement?

That question is not only relevant if you are suspicious. Especially when the cooperation feels smooth, it is good to know what financial incentives are involved. Does the mediator receive commission from the other side? Is there a bonus associated with achieving a certain contract result? Is there still a follow-up fee if the relationship is later extended, extended or resold? These are exactly the circumstances that can determine how independent the guidance really is in practice.

If you mediate or facilitate deals yourself

For startups and scale-ups that themselves operate as intermediaries, for example via a platform model or an advisory role on transactions, the lesson is just as important. As soon as your company has a direct or indirect interest in concluding a concrete agreement, providing restrained or abstract information is not enough. The standard requires active and sufficiently concrete openness.

This also means that a reference to terms and conditions, a summary fee disclosure or the idea that “everyone knows how this works” can be risky. The protection provided for in art. 7:418 of the Dutch Civil Code is properly designed to prevent the client from having to work with assumptions. Transparency should enable the client to make conscious choices.

The real lesson of art. 7:418 BW

Perhaps the most fundamental lesson is that art. 7:418 of the Dutch Civil Code is not just about conflict of interest, but about decision-making power. The law assumes that a client must be able to decide for himself whether he wants to continue with a mediator who also has his own interest in the deal. That choice can only be made freely and realistically if one's own interests are fully revealed.

This means that the standard is stricter than some parties in the market might hope. Not just proven disadvantage, not just a demonstrable clash of interests and not only an explicit request from the client activates the duty. In principle, the mere existence of a direct or indirect personal interest in the concrete legal act is sufficient.

This is a valuable lesson for startups and scale-ups. Fast commercial processes involve a lot of trust, pace and execution. That is precisely why clear openness about one's own interests is not a formality, but a prerequisite for pure cooperation. Those who mediate must lay their cards on the table. If you hire a mediator, you don't have to settle for half answers.

Conclusion

Art. 7:418 of the Dutch Civil Code sets the bar high for mediators. If the contractor has a direct or indirect interest in concluding a concrete agreement, that interest must be actively reported. Committee agreements also include openness about the amount of the commission.

For startups and scale-ups, this is not a theoretical detail, but a practical point of attention for any deal involving an intermediary. Transparency about one's own interests not only determines how smooth a negotiation is, but also whether trust legally lasts once the deal is closed.

‍