No valid appeal to non-compete clause in franchising
On 28 February 2017, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2017:1469, the provisional relief judge of the District Court of Gelderland ruled on whether a franchisee could be bound by a non-compete clause.
The preliminary relief judge ruled that the franchisor could not invoke the non-compete clause in the franchise agreement, given the circumstances of the case. The issue was that the retail premises rented from the franchisor had to make way for housing. In anticipation of new business premises to be rented from the franchisor, the franchisee (temporarily) operated a business under his own name. It was uncertain whether the franchisor would still be able to offer (suitable) business premises to continue the collaboration. In view of this uncertain situation, the interest of the franchisee in keeping his new store open outweighs the interest of the franchisor in the opinion of the preliminary relief judge.
If during or after the end of a franchise agreement there is uncertainty about the continuation of the cooperation, this could possibly (also, or more specifically) be assessed as an unforeseen circumstance (ex Article 6:258 of the Dutch Civil Code). To put an end to the uncertain situation, both parties could also (together) energetically turn to the (provisional) judge to come to an adjustment and/or interpretation of the existing agreements. A conflict situation could then perhaps be avoided.
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.
Supermarket letter – 23
AH may not reduce wages when taking over personnel from AH franchisees;
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
Article in Entrance: “Sending mailings”
“Can I make a file of guests' email addresses because I occasionally want to inform them online about events, promotions and new dishes?”