Article De Nationale Franchisegids: “Judge again rules in favor of Domino’s franchisees” – dated September 3, 2019 – mr. RCWL Albers
At the beginning of 2018, almost all franchisees of Domino’s and the Association of Domino’s Pizza Franchisees submitted two issues to the court in Rotterdam. On the one hand they oppose the change of their exclusive (service) area imposed by Domino’s and on the other hand against the obligation imposed by Domino’s to operate a lunch concept.
As early as January 9, 2019, the court ruled that Domino’s is not authorized to unilaterally reduce the exclusive (service) area of franchisees in the event of an extension of the franchise agreement.
On August 28, 2009, the court also ruled in favor of the franchisees in the dispute regarding the mandatory exploitation of the lunch concept. Briefly, the issue boiled down to the following.
Domino’s has been trying for several years to force its franchisees to open their doors during lunchtime. To this end, Domino’s invokes the provisions in the franchise agreement that include a provision regarding the establishment of opening hours, as well as the provisions in Domino’s handbook: the Managers Reference Guide (hereinafter: ‘MRG’). Extended opening hours have been included in this MRG since (probably) 2008. The franchise agreement stipulates that franchisees must comply with the provisions in the MRG.
There are three types of franchise agreements in circulation:
1. Agreements that do not include opening hours;
2.Agreements in which the opening hours are determined at (from) 4:00 PM;
3.Agreements in which the afternoon opening hours are included.
With regard to the latter agreement, the court considers that in principle there is no room for a (general) exception requested by the franchisees to these times included in the agreement. This requires an individual assessment of the circumstances of the franchisees concerned.
Regarding the versions 1. and 2. does the court rule that franchisees should not have taken into account when concluding the franchise agreement that Domino’s would oblige them to open during lunch hours because:
– Since its introduction in the Netherlands (1989), Domino’s has had opening hours between 4:00 PM and 10:00 PM;
– Domino’s has never applied or maintained the (extended) opening hours in the Netherlands included in the MRG;
– Domino’s has been focused on offering evening meals from the start in the Netherlands until a few years ago;
– There is no explicit provision in the franchise agreement that the franchisees must open their establishment during lunchtime.
In short, according to franchisors, Domino’s is not free to simply determine other opening hours for their franchisees (barring limited changes). In cases such as the present one in which the opening hours are extended from six to more than ten hours a day, a franchisor will have to have explicitly included a provision to this effect in the franchise agreement. A unilateral power to determine opening hours alone is not sufficient. Especially not when it comes to a formula that has used the same opening hours for many years and thus focuses on a specific segment (dinner instead of lunch). If a franchisor nevertheless wishes to implement such substantial changes under comparable circumstances, the consent of the franchisees will therefore be required.
Click here for the published article.
mr. RCWL Albers – Franchise Attorney
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice.
Do you want to respond? Go to albers@ludwigvandam.nl

Other messages
Tenancy law and franchise: approval of deviating terms in the tenancy agreement, despite material infringement and the lack of an equal social position between the tenant and landlord
Tenancy law and franchise: approval of deviating clauses in the lease.
Business transfer franchisee: franchisor properly facilitates franchisee in settlement
On November 12, 2014, the District Court of Rotterdam ruled in a case between the franchisor and the franchisee about the lawfulness of the termination of the franchise agreement.
Franchising as urgent personal use
In a judgment dated 18 November 2014, the Court of Appeal in Den Bosch considered, among other things, whether a lessor may terminate the lease of business premises due to urgent personal use.
Can exclusion of error in forecasting benefit the franchisor?
Franchisors are often accused of failing before and when concluding a franchise agreement
Mistake about prognosis, annulment of non-compete clause?
Mistake about prognosis, annulment of non-compete clause?
Chapter in book NFV about import and export of franchise formulas, written by mr. Th.R. Ludwig
Chapter in book NFV about import and export of franchise formulas, written by mr. Th.R. Ludwig