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
Franchisee obliged to cooperate with formula change?
On 24 March 2017, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2017:1860, the preliminary relief judge of the Amsterdam District Court once again considered the issue in which Intertoys wishes to convert Bart Smit's stores
Delivery stop by franchisor not allowed
On 9 February 2017, the preliminary relief judge of the District Court of Gelderland, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2017:1372, ruled that a franchisor had not fulfilled its obligation to supply the franchisee
Alex Dolphijn in the Financial Dagblad about the judgment of the Supreme Court regarding Street-One
Franchisors more liable for incorrect forecasts Franchisees can now more easily hold their parent organization liable for incorrect profit and turnover forecasts.
Supermarket letter – 17
Supreme Court: More quickly liable for forecasts
Article in Entrance: “Small print”
“When I do business with a supplier, I never read the fine print. Recently I noticed that there are all kinds of things in it that I actually do not agree with.
Column Franchise+ – mr. Th.R. Ludwig: “Delivery stop by franchisor again not allowed”
Once again, the president in preliminary relief proceedings ruled on the question whether a franchisor's supply stop against the franchisee was permitted, with the franchisee paying a substantial