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

Franchisee obliged to cooperate with formula change?

On 24 March 2017, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2017:1860, the preliminary relief judge of the Amsterdam District Court once again considered the issue in which Intertoys wishes to convert Bart Smit's stores

Delivery stop by franchisor not allowed

On 9 February 2017, the preliminary relief judge of the District Court of Gelderland, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2017:1372, ruled that a franchisor had not fulfilled its obligation to supply the franchisee

Alex Dolphijn in the Financial Dagblad about the judgment of the Supreme Court regarding Street-One

Franchisors more liable for incorrect forecasts Franchisees can now more easily hold their parent organization liable for incorrect profit and turnover forecasts.

Column Franchise+ – mr. Th.R. Ludwig: “Delivery stop by franchisor again not allowed”

Once again, the president in preliminary relief proceedings ruled on the question whether a franchisor's supply stop against the franchisee was permitted, with the franchisee paying a substantial

Go to Top