Can a franchisee cohabit with a competing entrepreneur?
Can a franchisee violate a non-compete clause by cohabiting with someone who runs a competing business? On 12 January 2018, the Court of Central Netherlands, ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2018:1641, rendered a judgment on this question.
A franchisor had entered into a franchise agreement with a franchisee. The collaboration was then cast in a different legal construction, whereby the formula was made available to the franchisee as part of the collaboration in a limited partnership. The new agreement included a non-compete clause.
According to that clause, the franchisee was prohibited, among other things, during the term of the agreement, from working directly or indirectly, independently or in employment or in the form of a company, or from having financial or business interests in activities or from working. be in a company that is competitive or similar.
The court ruled that the franchisee had directly and indirectly violated the non-compete clause, including by interfering with another company that performs activities that are virtually identical to those of the clinics according to the franchisor’s formula. This interference was apparent, for example, from the fact that the franchisee had until recently cohabited with the owner behind the aforementioned competing company. This person had also responded on behalf of himself and on behalf of the franchisee (in the “we” form) to the letters that the franchisor had written to the franchisee about the collaboration.
A non-compete clause can stretch further than might at first sight be the case.
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
Judge: Protect franchisee against supermarket organization (Coop) as lessor
Does the franchisee need legal protection from supermarket franchisor Coop? The District Court of Rotterdam ruled on 9 February 2018, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2018:1151, that this is the case.
Acquisition fraud vs. error in franchise forecasting
Who has to prove that the franchisor's forecast is unsound? In principle, this is the franchisee. If the franchisee invokes the Acquisition Fraud Act, it may be that
Obligation to sell back at the end of the franchise agreement
Franchise agreements sometimes provide that the franchisee is required to sell back purchased assets at the end of the franchise agreement.
Supermarket letter – 20
Uncertain legal position of Emté franchisees
Position of franchisees in franchisor restructuring
Franchisees must be adequately and generously informed in advance by the franchisor about the content and consequences of (further) agreements...
Interview Franchise+ – mrs. J. Sterk and AW Dolphijn – “Reversal of burden of proof in forecasts approved by court” – February 2018
The new Acquisition Fraud Act indeed appears to be relevant for the franchise industry, according to this article from Franchise+. Alex Dolphijn of Ludwig & Van Dam assists a franchisee in a