Article De Nationale Franchisegids: “The interim termination of the franchise agreement” – August 12, 2019 – mr. JAJ Devilee
A franchise agreement can end prematurely in many ways. For example, parties can decide by mutual consent to part ways and jointly make further agreements about this. Often, however, it is one of the parties that is not at all waiting for an interim farewell. In such a case may, for example, include dissolution or cancellation of the franchising agreement. In the event of (extrajudicial) dissolution of the franchise agreement usually becomes the franchise agreement effective immediately terminated and upon termination of the franchise agreement, a certain notice period must be observed.
However, the court begins in its judgment with it assessing the termination of the franchise agreement. The court has first contemplated that there is no termination by mutual consent occurred, as the parties have not reached agreement on the (core) conditions on which the collaboration would be terminated. In the context of the court considers that the extrajudicial dissolution does not exist of such serious failure on the part of the franchisee that would justify dissolution of the franchise agreement. Therefore considering the court that the franchise agreement has not been legally dissolved by the franchisor. With regard to the termination, the court considers that there is has been validly canceled by the franchisor and that the contractual notice period expires. This entails that the franchisor is the must enable the franchisee until June 1, 2019 to make the agreed to perform work during the period that the notice period is still valid continues. This means that the franchisor does not (yet) have access to should have denied the digital work system. Basically, the franchisor gets the lid on the nose, because in fact he acted too early as if the cooperation had already ended.
There are several roads that lead to Rome, but be aware always make sure you are on the right route. If you would like advice on this, please feel free to contact us.
Click here for the published article.
Other messages
The manager (employee) who becomes a franchisee – fictitious employment?
On 14 December 2016, the subdistrict court judge of the District Court of Noord-Holland, ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2016:11031 (Employee/Espresso Lounge), considered the situation in which an employee
The Supreme Court sets strict requirements for franchise forecasts
A ruling by the Supreme Court on Friday casts a new light on the provision of profit and turnover forecasts to aspiring franchisees.
Infringement of exclusive service area by franchisor in connection with formula change dated February 27, 2017
On 30 January 2017, the provisional relief judge of the District Court of Noord-Holland, ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2017:688 (Intertoys/franchisee), was asked how to deal with the
Forecasts at startup franchise formula
The Amsterdam Court of Appeal ruled on 14 February 2017, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:455 (Tot Straks/franchisee) on the question whether the franchisor had provided an unsatisfactory prognosis and whether the
Mandatory transfer of franchise business to franchisor?
On January 23, 2017, the District Court of Amsterdam, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2017:412 (CoffeeCompany/Dam Spirit BV) rendered a judgment on the question whether a franchisee upon termination of the cooperation
Transfer customer data to franchisor
In its judgment of 10 January 2017, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:68 (OnlineAccountants.nl), the Amsterdam Court ruled, among other things, on the question of how customer data should be transferred.