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. The franchise agreements are no longer fulfilled in the meantime, with all the dramatic consequences that entails. The VFS asks the court to rule that Sandd is in default and that both Sandd and PostNL are responsible for the damage suffered by the franchisees as a result.
The franchisees are systematically ignored.
Sandd and PostNL had been planning to join forces for some time. From the moment the franchisees became familiar with this, they have always asked what their position would be. The VFS franchisees serve more than 20% of Sandd’s network. These SME companies employ approximately three thousand mail deliverers and approximately four hundred and fifty employees.
When State Secretary Mona Keijzer approved the merger, the franchisees were therefore surprised that their position had not been taken into account. They are therefore challenging the conditions of the merger license at the Rotterdam District Court. That procedure is still ongoing. See the press release of November 12, 2019.
After the merger license, the franchisees were not informed until November 5 that the franchise activities will stop completely at the beginning of 2020. There was no solution for the franchisees at that time. Although the franchisees at Sandd and PostNL kept knocking afterwards, there is still no concrete plan. Chairman Mario de Koning of the VFS: “State Secretary Mona Keijzer had completely disregarded the franchisees in the merger permit, while it is precisely with the proposed Franchise Act that she wants to strengthen the position of franchisees against franchisors. Now that Sandd and PostNL are also ignoring the interests of the franchisees, the franchisees, including their employees, are left out in the cold.”
The VFS has the impression that it is trying to play the franchisees off against each other. De Koning: “Divide and conquer. The VFS has proposed principles for determining the damage. Sandd wants to circumvent those basic principles by forcing other basic principles through the individual franchisees. You put pressure on a franchisee to sign a contract with different principles for determining damages. The rest will follow automatically. We want to prevent that.”
Now that the position of the franchisees is not taken seriously, the franchisees are forced to go to court. They want recognition of Sandd’s default and PostNL’s unlawful actions, in order to arrive at an adequate solution.
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.