Infringement of exclusive service area by franchisor in connection with formula change dated February 27, 2017
On 30 January 2017, the interim relief judge of the District Court of Noord-Holland, ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2017:688 (Intertoys/franchisee), was asked how to deal with the franchisee’s exclusive service area in the event of a formula change.
Infringement of the exclusive service area
A branch of the comparable Bart Smit formula was located within the exclusive service area that the franchisor had assigned to the franchisee. Both the Intertoys formula and the Bart Smit formula belong to the same franchising group. The branch with the Bart Smit formula would carry the Intertoys formula. The franchisee of the existing Intertoys branch protested against this, now that it had been agreed that the franchisee would have the exclusive right to operate the formula in the catchment area concerned.
Article 10 paragraph 2 of the franchise agreement requires the franchisee’s permission to allow third parties to use the Intertoys system within the franchisee’s exclusive service area, or to allow the franchisee to compete in this area in some other way. In the opinion of the preliminary relief judge, this also includes the conversion of a Bart Smit store located within it into an Intertoys store.
The preliminary relief judge rules that, in the context of the right to fulfillment of the franchise agreement, Intertoys can, in principle, be required not to perform any acts that are in conflict with the exclusivity clause. The main reason for this is that the right of the franchisee has economic value. The value of the franchise agreement is pre-eminently determined by the exclusivity clause, which thus constitutes one of the core provisions – if not the core provision – of the franchise agreement.
Formula change
The defense put forward is that there is a need to replace the Bart Smit formula with the Intertoys formula in order to create a single viable toy store formula and that this serves the purpose of commercially combining the strengths of the two formulas. However, this is insufficient to legitimize violation of Article 10 paragraph 2 of the franchise agreement, according to the preliminary relief judge. However, a commercial necessity of this restructuring – if sufficiently demonstrated – could mean that a franchisee cannot, according to standards of reasonableness and fairness, withhold permission for such an infringement.
It is therefore conceivable that reasonableness and fairness in a franchise relationship entail that a franchisee conforms to the course and results of a collective process of consultation and decision-making by/with all franchisees involved, set up by the franchisor. However, this requires that the process is also conducted collectively from the outset and is properly structured, in other words that a compensation policy is established in consultation with a representative of the collective of franchisees in which the voice of the affected franchisees weighs heavily. Transparency should be the starting point here; a fait accompli policy should be avoided. The preliminary relief judge is of the opinion that the process followed in this case does not meet these conditions. In the preliminary opinion, therefore, there was no question of an exception to the main rule of respect for the exclusive catchment area.
Formula changes remain thorny issues in which due diligence is of paramount importance.
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
Bankrupt because the franchisor refused to sell the franchise company – dated January 28, 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The District Court of The Hague has dealt with a request from a franchisor to declare a franchisee bankrupt.
Prescribed shop fitting – dated January 28, 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Midden-Nederland District Court has ruled on whether a franchisee is obliged to carry the shop fittings prescribed by the franchisor.
Ludwig & Van Dam attorneys summon Sandd and PostNL on behalf of the Sandd franchisees – dated 9 January 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Association of Franchisees of Sandd (VFS) has today summoned Sandd and PostNL before the court in Arnhem. The VFS believes that Sandd and PostNL are letting the franchisees down hard.
Article The National Franchise Guide: “Why joint and several liability, for example, next to private?” – dated 7 January 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
Franchisees are often asked to co-sign the franchise agreement in addition to their franchise, for example. Sometimes franchisees refuse to do so and the franchise agreement is not signed.
Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten assists Sandd franchisees: Franchisees Sandd challenge postal monopoly in court – dated 12 November 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Association of Franchisees of Sandd (VFS) is challenging the decision of State Secretary Mona Keijzer to approve the postal merger between PostNL and Sandd before the court in Rotterdam.
Franchisee trapped by non-compete clause? – dated October 21, 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
The District Court of East Brabant has ruled that a franchisee was still bound by the non-competition clause in the event of premature termination of the franchise agreement.