Despite the franchisee’s counterclaim, the franchisor justified dissolution of the franchise contract
Court of Rotterdam
The Rotterdam court recently ruled that payment arrears of more than € 80,000 is sufficient for the franchisor to dissolve the franchise agreement.
The overdue payment is sufficient to terminate the franchise agreement, despite the fact that the franchisee claims that the franchisor has not made any marketing efforts or provided marketing materials, even though the franchisee has paid € 400,000 for this. However, according to the court, the alleged counterclaim is not substantiated at all. Furthermore, it has not become apparent that the franchisee has given the franchisor notice of default at any time, so that there can be no question of default on the part of the franchisor and therefore no due and payable counterclaim has arisen. Suspension of payment arrears of more than € 80,000 is therefore not justified.
The Rotterdam court therefore ruled that the franchisor was right to dissolve the franchise agreement and furthermore decreed that the franchisee may no longer act as a franchisee to the outside world. Furthermore, the claim of more than € 80,000 to be paid.
For suspension by the franchisee in such a situation it is necessary that there is a well-founded substantiation, including notice of default, and not that the unsubstantiated allegation is raised in court for the first time.
Mr Th.R. Ludwig – Franchise lawyer
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice Would you like to respond? Mail to ludwig@ludwigvandam.nl
Other messages
Fine for franchisor because aspiring franchisee is foreigner
On 5 July 2017, the Council of State, ECLI:NL:RVS:2017:1815, decided whether, in the case of (proposed) cooperation between a franchisor and a prospective franchisee, the franchisor
Article in Entrance: “Company name”
“I came up with a wonderful name for my catering company and incurred the necessary costs for this. Now there is another entrepreneur who is going to use almost the same one. Is that allowed?"
The bank’s duty of care in franchise agreements
On 23 May 2017, the Court of Appeal in The Hague, EQLI:NL:GHDHA:2017:1368, had to rule on the question whether the bank should have warned a prospective franchisee in connection with the
Article in Entrance: “Standing up”
“Can I fire an employee with immediate effect if he steals something trivial, such as food that has passed its expiration date?”
Arbitration clause in franchise agreement sometimes inconvenient
On 20 July 2016, the District Court of Gelderland, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2016:4868, ruled on the validity of an agreement in a franchise agreement, whereby disputes would be settled
Supermarket letter – 18
Can an entrepreneur be obliged to operate a different supermarket formula?