Exclusive purchase obligations.
Mr DL van Dam – Franchise lawyer
In a judgment of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal dated 31 October 2002, which was issued in response to an appeal lodged against an earlier preliminary injunction, it was ruled that an exclusive purchase obligation with regard to beer and related products is permitted because, according to the Court of Appeal , which falls under the exemption of the Regulation on the application of Article 81(3) of the EC Treaty to categories of vertical agreements, the so-called Block Exemption Regulation, and its predecessor. A factor in this was that the brewer in question, which had imposed the exclusive purchase clause on the customer, also made the business premises of the customer available to that customer in addition to beer and related products. The fact that this provision took place in the context of a leasehold construction did not detract from the reasoning of the Court of Appeal. What is special about this is that in the first instance the President of the District Court ruled that the exclusive purchase clause was also permissible, albeit on the basis of the lack of appreciability, now that the brewer in question remained below the 15% market share limit. The Court of Appeal could also have followed that reasoning, but chose to link up with the Block Exemption Regulation. The lesson that can be drawn from this ruling is that an exclusive purchase clause, also in franchise relationships, can be maintained under various circumstances in several ways. This also applies if the buyer(s) involved in that exclusive purchase clause object(s) to this. It goes without saying that it is and remains important that the exclusive purchase clause otherwise meets the various requirements to be set for it and that it is also justified under the specific circumstances of the case. Testing such a clause in advance is therefore recommended at all times.
Ludwig & Van Dam franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice
Other messages
Article Franchise+ – “Recipient’s liability in a franchise context, what exactly is that about?” – mr. K. Bastiaans – dated November 24, 2020
The phenomenon of hirer's liability means that a third party can be held liable for the debts of another under certain conditions.
Franchisor liable for errors made by a franchisee? – mr. AW Dolphijn – dated November 23, 2020
A franchise organization asked the court to declare that the franchisor is not liable if a franchisee has made a serious mistake with a customer.
The Real Intentions of the Parties to a Franchise Agreement – Mr. C. Damen – dated November 23, 2020
What really was the idea of the parties when they concluded a franchise agreement?
Circumventing the prohibition of competition in the franchise agreement – mr. AW Dolphijn – dated November 10, 2020
A non-competition clause in a franchise agreement is often experienced as objectionable by franchisees, especially if the non-competition clause also applies after the franchise agreement has expired.
Article Franchise+ – “How do I get rid of my debts: Also for franchisees and franchisors” – mr. AW Dolphijn – dated October 20, 2020
A reorganization may also be necessary for franchisees and franchisors who are in financial difficulties in order to continue to exist.
Article De Nationale Franchise Gids: “Reinvestment obligation for franchisees has limits” – dated October 13, 2020 – mr. RCWL Albers
In practice, it often happens that franchisors choose to renew their franchise formula and the appropriate image