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
Franchisee obliged to cooperate with formula change?
On 24 March 2017, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2017:1860, the preliminary relief judge of the Amsterdam District Court once again considered the issue in which Intertoys wishes to convert Bart Smit's stores
Delivery stop by franchisor not allowed
On 9 February 2017, the preliminary relief judge of the District Court of Gelderland, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2017:1372, ruled that a franchisor had not fulfilled its obligation to supply the franchisee
Alex Dolphijn in the Financial Dagblad about the judgment of the Supreme Court regarding Street-One
Franchisors more liable for incorrect forecasts Franchisees can now more easily hold their parent organization liable for incorrect profit and turnover forecasts.
Supermarket letter – 17
Supreme Court: More quickly liable for forecasts
Article in Entrance: “Small print”
“When I do business with a supplier, I never read the fine print. Recently I noticed that there are all kinds of things in it that I actually do not agree with.
Column Franchise+ – mr. Th.R. Ludwig: “Delivery stop by franchisor again not allowed”
Once again, the president in preliminary relief proceedings ruled on the question whether a franchisor's supply stop against the franchisee was permitted, with the franchisee paying a substantial