Preferential right of purchase in lease does not apply – September 7, 2018 – mr. AW Dolphin
The District Court of The Hague ruled on 5 September 2018, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2018:10554, that a share transaction within the tenant’s organization does not mean that the landlord can invoke the pre-emptive right stipulated in favor of the landlord of buy.
However, it should be noted that the rental agreement and the pre-emptive right of purchase were concluded at the time by expert parties and expert advisers and that there was an ‘intercompany’ rental agreement within the same group. Therefore, according to the court, great weight should be attached to the linguistic meaning of the chosen wording of the agreement in this specific case. Therefore, the pre-emptive right of purchase cannot be circumvented in all cases by means of a transaction of the shares in the lessee.
mr. AW Dolphin – franchise lawyer
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice. Do you want to respond? Contact
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.