Arbitration clause in franchise agreement sometimes inconvenient
On 20 July 2016, the District Court of Gelderland, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2016:4868, ruled on the validity of an agreement in a franchise agreement, whereby disputes would be settled by means of arbitration instead of by the “ordinary” court. This ruling shows that when opting for an arbitration clause in a franchise agreement, there are sometimes negative practical consequences that may not have been thought through in advance.
A franchisee has sued a franchisor for breach of obligations under the franchise agreement. In addition to the franchisor, the direct director and the indirect director of the franchisor have also been summoned. They are charged with liability on the basis of an independent unlawful act, or directors’ liability.
The franchisor opposes the jurisdiction of the ordinary court and points out that the franchise agreement stipulates that disputes are settled by means of arbitration. The court considers that the franchise agreement contains an arbitration clause and that the franchisor is therefore only bound by the arbitration clause with regard to those disputes. There is no arbitration clause with regard to the liability of the direct and indirect director. The main rule applies to this. This, despite the fact that the arbitration clause pertains to disputes “as a result of” the franchise agreement.
The conclusion is that with regard to the dispute against the franchisor, the court has no jurisdiction and the court can rule with regard to the direct and indirect director. This may lead to the unforeseen event that the disputes are, as it were, split and the factual bases may be the same, but the judgment of the court and the judgment of the arbitrator may differ.
When drawing up an arbitration clause, it is worth taking into account any related or analogous disputes that could not be brought before the same arbitral tribunal at the same time. In the present case, the court ruled that the arbitration clause cannot be broken, because splitting the case would lead to inefficient litigation.
mr. AW Dolphijn – Franchise lawyer
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice. Do you want to respond? Go to dolphijn@ludwigvandam.nl .
Other messages
A recurring problem in operation: Forecasts not achieved
A recurring problem in operation: Forecasts not achieved
Franchisee sentenced to pay fine after violation of non-competition clause
The parties have entered into a franchise agreement which relates to assisting divorces. The franchise agreement is terminated by the franchisee.
Non-competition clause unreasonably onerous
Non-competition clause unreasonably onerous
Ludwig & Van Dam main sponsor partner National Franchise Congress 4 October 2012
The world goes on. And it seems to be getting faster and faster. It took 130,000 years before we invented the steam engine around 1750.
Failure to provide the data underlying the forecasts will justify dissolution
Failure to provide information on which the forecasts are based is possible
Non-competition clause in the franchise agreement should not be lightly brushed aside due to (alleged) incorrect forecasting and non-performance and/or reasonableness and fairness
The Court of Appeal of 's-Hertogenbosch recently ruled on the question whether a franchisee is