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
Column Franchise+ – mr. J. Sterk – “Franchisee does body check better than franchise check”
A gym embarks on a franchise concept that offers “Body Checks” and discounts to (potential) members in collaboration with health insurers.
Seminar Mrs. J. Sterk and M. Munnik – Thursday, November 2, 2017: “Important legal developments for franchisors”
Attorneys Jeroen Sterk and Maaike Munnik of Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten will update you on the status of and developments surrounding the Dutch Franchise Code and the Acquisition Fraude Act.
Goodwill at end of franchise agreement
In a case before the Amsterdam Court of Appeal on 26 September 2017, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:3900 (Seal & Go), a franchisee claimed compensation for goodwill (ex Article 7:308 of the Dutch Civil Code) after the
Article in Entrance: “Resignation”
Fire an employee who is not performing well? The subdistrict court is strict. If you, as an employer, cannot demonstrate that you have done everything yourself to make the person function better, it will be
Cost price that is too high as a hidden franchise fee
An interlocutory judgment of the District Court of The Hague dated 30 August 2017, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2017:10597 (Happy Nurse) shows that the court has considered the question whether the
Supermarket letter – 19
Coop liability for damages due to non-performance towards the franchisee