In a case before the Amsterdam Court of Appeal on 26 September 2017, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:3900 (Seal & Go), a franchisee claimed goodwill compensation (ex Article 7:308 of the Dutch Civil Code) after the franchisor had terminated the lease, in order to continue the operation of the company itself. 

In the first instance, the District Court of Noord-Holland dated 24 December 2015, ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2015:11974, rejected the franchisee’s claim because there was no advantage on the part of the franchisor. The clientele was due to the location and not the entrepreneurial activity. The company was located at Schiphol Airport and it is that location that apparently, according to the court, resulted in the (accumulated) customer base. 

The Court of Appeal upheld the District Court’s judgment and added that the mere significant increase in turnover and profit realized by the former franchisee does not provide sufficient concrete leads to conclude that the franchisor has enjoyed an attributable advantage. to the franchisee’s business activities. 

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

On the edge of a franchisee’s exclusive territory

The Court of Appeal of Arnhem-Leeuwarden ruled on 15 May 2018, ECLI:NL:GHARL:2018:4395, on the question whether a franchisor has a branch just over the edge of the exclusively granted protection area.

Can a franchisee cohabit with a competing entrepreneur?

Can a franchisee violate a non-compete clause by cohabiting with someone who runs a competing business? On January 12, 2018, the District Court of Central Netherlands ruled

Not an exclusive catchment area, but still exclusivity for the franchisee

The judgment of the District Court of Noord-Holland dated 18 April 2018, ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2018:3268, ruled on the exclusivity area of ​​a franchisee.

Termination or dissolution of the franchise agreement by the franchisee

In principle, franchise agreements can be terminated prematurely, for example by cancellation or dissolution. On 21 March 2018, the District Court of Overijssel ruled on ECLI:NL:RBOVE:2018:1335 on

Go to Top