Competing without a non-competition clause?
The franchise non-compete obligation remains a source of dispute. The Court of Appeal of ‘s-Hertogenbosch ruled on 27 May 2014 (ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2014:1502) on a matter that raised the question whether competing activities were permitted because no non-compete clause had been agreed.
A franchise entrepreneur of a funeral company sells his company to another. The buyer enters into a franchise agreement with the franchisor. After some time it turns out that the seller arranges funerals in the area where he was also active before the sale of his company.
The court, like the court, is of the opinion that the seller was not allowed to arrange funerals and was allowed to keep the profit. After all, the seller had sold that part of the company to the buyer for good money. It follows from the requirements of reasonableness and fairness that the seller must refrain from competing with the company that he has sold. This also applies if, as here, the parties have not included a non-competition clause in the purchase agreement.
The selling party is itself one of the partners of the franchisor. The franchisor is a general partnership. The franchise agreement prohibits the franchisor from entering into franchise agreements with other franchisees for a particular territory. It was therefore all the more true that the seller’s competitive activities within the territory were unacceptable.
This issue once again shows the importance of clear agreements. When transferring franchise companies, it is always wise to agree on the subject of competition. Even if it is agreed that no restriction of competition applies, it is also important to record that.
Mr AW Dolphijn – Franchise lawyer
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys,franchise legal advice. Do you want to respond? Mail 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