Franchisor prohibits opening (franchise) company
A franchisor applied for interim measures to prohibit a franchisee from opening a franchisee’s business. See Court of the Northern Netherlands 26 June 2018, ECLI:NL:RBNNE:2018:2428. The franchisor believed that the franchisee had wrongly failed to consult with the franchisor before opening the business, to which the franchisee had invited 80 to 100 people.
The preliminary relief judge rules that the franchisee is in breach of contract by deliberately planning the opening of the company outside the franchise agreement without referring to the franchisor, while it has been established that the company was set up thanks to the franchise agreement. Moreover, it has been established that the franchisor and franchisee had precisely agreed that the opening of the company would take place in joint consultation. The preliminary relief judge prohibits the official opening of the company planned by the franchisee, despite the fact that the invitations had already been sent and the planning had already been established.
mr. AW Dolphijn – franchise lawyer
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice. Do you want to respond? Go to dolphijn@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.