Column Franchise+ – mr. J Sterk: “Court orders fast food chain to extend franchise agreement

The right to extend the franchise agreement 

The case is set to begin this year. The franchisee has been refusing for years to sign the new franchise agreement that is offered upon renewal, as this would entail a deterioration of his legal position. However, the franchisor considers the existing franchise agreement outdated and strives for uniformity. However, the franchisee wants to negotiate the content with his lawyer first. The franchisor does not like this and points out that due to the conflict that has arisen and the interference of the lawyer, fruitful cooperation would no longer be possible. The franchisor then terminates the franchise agreement. The franchisee then starts summary proceedings. The court is of the opinion that the franchisor was too hasty and should have negotiated the terms of the extension with the franchisee and his lawyer. The franchisor is sentenced to extend the franchise agreement until an irrevocable decision has been made in proceedings on the merits that have apparently yet to be started, and that can take years, including an appeal and possibly even cassation.

Other messages

On the edge of a franchisee’s exclusive territory

The Court of Appeal of Arnhem-Leeuwarden ruled on 15 May 2018, ECLI:NL:GHARL:2018:4395, on the question whether a franchisor has a branch just over the edge of the exclusively granted protection area.

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 January 12, 2018, the District Court of Central Netherlands ruled

Not an exclusive catchment area, but still exclusivity for the franchisee

The judgment of the District Court of Noord-Holland dated 18 April 2018, ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2018:3268, ruled on the exclusivity area of ​​a franchisee.

Termination or dissolution of the franchise agreement by the franchisee

In principle, franchise agreements can be terminated prematurely, for example by cancellation or dissolution. On 21 March 2018, the District Court of Overijssel ruled on ECLI:NL:RBOVE:2018:1335 on

Go to Top