Franchise contract not signed? Still bound…
District Court of the Northern Netherlands
Recently, the court in the Northern Netherlands ruled on the question of the status of the franchise relationship between franchisee and franchisor on the basis of the factual cooperation without the franchise agreement having been signed. The court considers the following. It is relevant that the franchisee, when entering into the franchise relationship, has not expressed any objections to the content of the franchise agreement submitted. Nor has it emerged that the franchisee would have set as a suspensory condition that a franchise agreement would only have existed if both the franchisee and the franchisor had actually signed the franchise agreement. If it then turns out that the franchisee will in fact operate the store in accordance with the provisions of the franchise agreement, the court finds that the franchisee in question has all in all tacitly accepted the franchise agreement and that he has therefore concluded a full franchise contract – entirely in accordance the contents of the franchise agreement submitted to the franchisee. The fact that the franchise contract was sent to the franchisee by the franchisor much later, and even the fact that the franchisee did not want to sign the franchise contract, does not change this.
The parties are therefore advised, in order to avoid any misunderstanding, to actually sign the franchise agreement well before the start of the actual cooperation. Indeed, if both the franchisee and the franchisor act in accordance with the content of the franchise agreement, both parties, despite the lack of signature, are fully bound by the written document. An interesting question is whether the court’s position can be extended to the extent that the former franchisee is also bound by the post-contractual non-competition clause. If this were the case, then provisions that would take effect after the end of the franchise agreement in signed contracts would also have far-reaching consequences for both the franchisee and the franchisor.
Mr Th.R. Ludwig – Franchise lawyer
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys,franchise legal advice. Do you want to respond? Mail to vandam@ludwigvandam.nl
Other messages
Infringement of non-competition clause, where is the limit?
In this matter, a former freelancer of massage parlor Doctor Feelgood started his own massage parlor under the name Feelgood-store.
Research into numbers of franchise procedures
We recently published a brief survey of franchise jurisprudence over the past six years on the website.
Violation of duty of care affects exoneration
In a dispute about an appeal to an exoneration clause in the franchise agreement by the franchisor, it was considered that the nature of the franchise agreement should be taken into account
Supermarket letter – 5
Acquisition of a supermarket location by terminating the lease at the expense of the sitting tenant is allowed by the Supreme Court.
Acquisition of a supermarket location by terminating the lease at the expense of the sitting tenant is allowed by the Supreme Court
On 25 April 2014, the Supreme Court confirmed for the second time that the waiting period of three years for termination of the rental agreement for retail space due to urgent personal use after the purchase of the property
Unauthorized unilateral collective fee increase by the franchisor
In an important decision of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal of 23 April 2014, the question was whether a franchisor was allowed to implement an increase in a contribution.