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
Legal Franchise Statistics 2019: slight decrease in number of franchise disputes
In 2018, 44 judgments were published on Rechtspraak.nl, 12 of which were appeal cases and one in cassation (a prognosis issue against Albert Heijn).
Article De Nationale Franchisegids: “Judge again rules in favor of Domino’s franchisees” – dated September 3, 2019 – mr. RCWL Albers
At the beginning of 2018, almost all franchisees of Domino's and the Association of Domino's Pizza Franchisees submitted two issues to the court in Rotterdam.
Article De Nationale Franchisegids: “The interim termination of the franchise agreement” – August 12, 2019 – mr. JAJ Devilee
A franchise agreement can end prematurely in many ways.
Article De Nationale Franchise Gids: “Parliamentary questions asked about (false) self-employment franchisees” – dated 24 July 2019 – mr. M. Munnik
Parliamentary questions have recently been asked about the so-called bogus self-employment within the relationship between franchisor and franchisee.
Article Franchise+: “With our franchise formula you will earn mountains of gold.” dated 10 July 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
The distinction between permissible promotions and misleading information remains a gray area, despite the relevant legislation.
Franchisee may purchase a range of foreign products after mandatory formula change – June 6, 2019 – mr. JAJ Devilee
The District Court of East Brabant recently dealt with an important matter in preliminary relief proceedings in which a franchisee was completely involuntarily forced to adopt an alternative formula.





