Linking rental agreement and franchise agreement: new legislation
The new tenancy law is expected to come into force in a few months’ time. This has consequences for the link between the duration of the rental agreement and that of the franchise agreement.
In a contribution to this newsletter from a few months ago, attention has already been paid to the link between the duration of the (sub)lease agreement between franchisor and franchisee and that of the franchise agreement concluded between the parties. Such a link constitutes a deviation from the mandatory rental regime from the Civil Code. Approval from the subdistrict court is required for such a deviation.
Under the current regulations, the court will only approve a deviating clause based on the special circumstances of the case. This is a fairly general criterion that is broadly interpreted in practice. As a result, under the current regulations, the subdistrict court usually grants its approval for a clause in which the duration of the sublease agreement is linked to that of the franchise agreement.
The new tenancy law maintains the system of compulsory tenancy protection for the tenant for a period of five + five years. Approval from the subdistrict court remains necessary.
However, a new criterion is used on the basis of the new regulations. Approval will only be given if the deviating clause does not substantially affect the rent protection that the tenant (franchisee) has, or if the social position of the tenant compared to that of the lessor is such that he does not reasonably need the rent protection. If one of these conditions is not met, the approval by the subdistrict court judge will not be granted. Compared to the current regulations, approval by the subdistrict court is expected to be refused more often. After the entry into force of the new regulations, practical experience will first have to be gained in order to ultimately be able to assess in which cases approval will be granted for linking the duration of the (sub)lease agreement to that of the franchise agreement.
In conclusion, it must be stated that the possibilities to link the duration of the (sub)lease agreement and that of the franchise agreement will probably be limited under the new regulations
Ludwig & Van Dam franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice
Other messages
Does a franchisee have to accept a new model franchise agreement?
On 31 March 2017, the District Court of Rotterdam, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2017:2457, ruled in interlocutory proceedings on the question whether franchisor Bram Ladage had complied with the franchise agreement with its franchisee.
Mandatory (market-based) purchase prices for franchisees
To what extent can a franchisor change agreements about the (market) purchase prices of the goods that the franchisees are obliged to purchase?
Director’s liability of a franchisee after failing to rely on an unsound prognosis.
On 11 July 2017, the Court of Appeal of 's-Hertogenbosch made a decision on whether the franchisor could successfully sue the director of a BV for non-compliance with the
Liability accountant for prepared prognosis?
In a judgment of the Court of Appeal of 's-Hertogenbosch of 11 July 2017, ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2017:3153, it was discussed that franchisees accused the franchisor's accountant of being liable
How far does the bank’s duty of care extend?
Some time ago the question was raised in case law what the position of the bank is in the triangular relationship franchisor – bank – franchisee.
Burden of proof reversal in forecasting as misleading advertising?
In an interlocutory judgment of 15 June 2017, the District Court of Zeeland-West-Brabant, ECLI:NL:RBZWB:2017:3833, ruled on a claim for (among other things) suspension of the non-compete clause.