Converted C-1000 entrepreneurs to AH not profitable
‘New’ AH’ers think about sales
‘Exploitation not feasible’
ROTTERDAM – Various ex-C1000 entrepreneurs who are now active under the AH flag are considering selling their supermarket. “Even with a subsidy from AH, profitable operation is not feasible,” says lawyer Jeroen Sterk, in Distrifood – an independent newspaper for supermarkets.
As a legal adviser, the lawyer from the Rotterdam firm of Ludwig & van Dam assists various ‘new’ AH entrepreneurs. The lawyer does not want to say how many entrepreneurs are negotiating with AH about the sale of their supermarket. ‘It concerns several entrepreneurs who, after conversion, have to deal with heavily loss-making operations. Albert Heijn does come to their aid with subsidies, but even with that a profitable operation is not feasible,’ says Sterk .
The option to sell the store back to AH is the last life buoy for those entrepreneurs, albeit an unattractive one. In this way, they risk incurring a double loss. They have suffered serious damage in the operation and, because of the existing agreements on goodwill compensation, are also at risk of having to sell their shop at a much lower price. At the beginning of this year, Wim Brouns from Helmond already sold his shop back to AH because the switch from C1000 to AH cost him €70,000 in turnover per week.
In addition to talks about selling shops, AH is at risk of ending up in legal proceedings with various entrepreneurs. The supermarket company has already received the first summons and, according to Sterk , more are being prepared. It concerns an entrepreneur who reproaches AH that the company has issued careless turnover forecasts and that it does not feel sufficiently responsible for the damage suffered. AH has now responded to that summons. Sterk is not impressed by that reply. “AH thinks it has done enough to limit the damage.” The case is now expected to be continued before the (civil) court. Whether that leads to a verdict is uncertain. In many cases, the court will initially aim for a settlement.
Mr. J. Strong – Franchise attorney
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys,franchise legal advice.
Do you want to respond? Mail to Sterk@ludwigvandam.nl
Other messages
Duty of care franchisor in the pre-contractual phase
The District Court of Limburg ruled on 6 April 2017, ECLI:NL:RBLIM:2016:2843, that the franchisor has a duty of care towards the prospective franchisee in the pre-contractual phase.
Franchisee avoids joint and several liability in private
In a judgment of 28 March 2018, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2018:2913, the District Court of Rotterdam ruled on the meaning of the clause in the franchise agreement stipulating that
Incorrect prognosis due to lack of location research
The District Court of The Hague ruled on 21 March 2018, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2018:3348, that a franchisor's forecast was unsound, as a result of which the franchisee had erred and the franchisor
Column Franchise+ – “Disputes about franchise fees”
Lately, it has also hit the biggest franchise organizations in the Netherlands. At the formulas of Albert Heijn, Hema, Etos, Bruna and Olympia, for example, there was and will be a lot
Ludwig & Van Dam sponsor of the Franchise Trophy 2018
On May 24, 2018, VVD member of parliament Martin Wörsdörfer and ID&T founder Duncan Stutterheim will present the Franchise Trophy 2018 on behalf of the Dutch Franchise Association.
Column Franchise+ – “Flashing quarrels about franchise fee must stop”
Lately, it has also hit the biggest franchise organizations in the Netherlands. At the formulas of Albert Heijn, HEMA, Etos, Bruna and Olympia, for example, there was and will be a lot