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
Column Franchise+ – mr. J. Sterk – “Franchisee does body check better than franchise check”
A gym embarks on a franchise concept that offers “Body Checks” and discounts to (potential) members in collaboration with health insurers.
Seminar Mrs. J. Sterk and M. Munnik – Thursday, November 2, 2017: “Important legal developments for franchisors”
Attorneys Jeroen Sterk and Maaike Munnik of Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten will update you on the status of and developments surrounding the Dutch Franchise Code and the Acquisition Fraude Act.
Goodwill at end of franchise agreement
In a case before the Amsterdam Court of Appeal on 26 September 2017, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:3900 (Seal & Go), a franchisee claimed compensation for goodwill (ex Article 7:308 of the Dutch Civil Code) after the
Article in Entrance: “Resignation”
Fire an employee who is not performing well? The subdistrict court is strict. If you, as an employer, cannot demonstrate that you have done everything yourself to make the person function better, it will be
Cost price that is too high as a hidden franchise fee
An interlocutory judgment of the District Court of The Hague dated 30 August 2017, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2017:10597 (Happy Nurse) shows that the court has considered the question whether the
Supermarket letter – 19
Coop liability for damages due to non-performance towards the franchisee