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
The manager (employee) who becomes a franchisee – fictitious employment?
On 14 December 2016, the subdistrict court judge of the District Court of Noord-Holland, ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2016:11031 (Employee/Espresso Lounge), considered the situation in which an employee
The Supreme Court sets strict requirements for franchise forecasts
A ruling by the Supreme Court on Friday casts a new light on the provision of profit and turnover forecasts to aspiring franchisees.
Infringement of exclusive service area by franchisor in connection with formula change dated February 27, 2017
On 30 January 2017, the provisional relief judge of the District Court of Noord-Holland, ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2017:688 (Intertoys/franchisee), was asked how to deal with the
Forecasts at startup franchise formula
The Amsterdam Court of Appeal ruled on 14 February 2017, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:455 (Tot Straks/franchisee) on the question whether the franchisor had provided an unsatisfactory prognosis and whether the
Mandatory transfer of franchise business to franchisor?
On January 23, 2017, the District Court of Amsterdam, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2017:412 (CoffeeCompany/Dam Spirit BV) rendered a judgment on the question whether a franchisee upon termination of the cooperation
Transfer customer data to franchisor
In its judgment of 10 January 2017, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:68 (OnlineAccountants.nl), the Amsterdam Court ruled, among other things, on the question of how customer data should be transferred.