Prescribed shop fitting – dated January 28, 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
On December 20, 2019, the District Court of the Central Netherlands
ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2019:6337 made a decision as to whether a
franchisee is required by the franchisor
to carry out shop fittings.
A franchisor and franchisee have a franchise agreement with
closed each other. This franchise agreement contains provisions
about the design and associated appearance of the establishment of the
franchisee. Reference is made to regulations and instructions that
are included in the handbook of the franchise formula. That same day
parties have concluded an additional agreement in which they
have agreed that the franchisor will receive an investment fee
makes € 50,000.00 available to the franchisee for the renovation
of the establishment. The franchisor’s permanent interior designer has
made an elaboration of the corporate identity for the relevant branch
appearance of the franchise formula in a “Lay-out & Formula
Document”.
Subsequently, the parties entered into a sublease agreement for the
franchise establishment. In addition to provisions on payment of rent, in
this sublease agreement stipulates that the tenant is obliged to use the rented property
to be completed within three months of being made available
and put into use. Provisions are also included regarding the design
of the leased property in accordance with the franchise formula.
Because the franchisor believed that the franchisee was not complying
to the agreements from the franchise agreement, the supplementary agreement
and the sublease agreement by not (fully) renovating the store
in accordance with the franchise formula, the franchisor has a short
litigation started.
After the first hearing on 21 November 2019, the parties have agreed
consulted and made agreements in response to the
points of contention. With these agreements, the franchisor has her
initial requirement that the establishment must be furnished in accordance with the
Franchise agreement, the sublease agreement and the Layout &
Formula Document has at least partly been released. This newly created
agreements are laid down in email correspondence. At the wish of the
franchisor to record the agreements in an official report
not meet the franchisee. At the request of the franchisor
the franchisee was sentenced in a judgment to the newly made
to fulfill agreements.
In retrospect, the franchisor might have done better with this first
the amount of the investment fee the shop fitting to her
to grow your own taste. Only then would the franchise and
enter into a sublease agreement.
mr. AW Dolphijn – franchise lawyer
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice. Want
you respond?
Go to dolphijn@ludwigvandam.nl
Other messages
Judge: Protect franchisee against supermarket organization (Coop) as lessor
Does the franchisee need legal protection from supermarket franchisor Coop? The District Court of Rotterdam ruled on 9 February 2018, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2018:1151, that this is the case.
Acquisition fraud vs. error in franchise forecasting
Who has to prove that the franchisor's forecast is unsound? In principle, this is the franchisee. If the franchisee invokes the Acquisition Fraud Act, it may be that
Obligation to sell back at the end of the franchise agreement
Franchise agreements sometimes provide that the franchisee is required to sell back purchased assets at the end of the franchise agreement.
Supermarket letter – 20
Uncertain legal position of Emté franchisees
Position of franchisees in franchisor restructuring
Franchisees must be adequately and generously informed in advance by the franchisor about the content and consequences of (further) agreements...
Interview Franchise+ – mrs. J. Sterk and AW Dolphijn – “Reversal of burden of proof in forecasts approved by court” – February 2018
The new Acquisition Fraud Act indeed appears to be relevant for the franchise industry, according to this article from Franchise+. Alex Dolphijn of Ludwig & Van Dam assists a franchisee in a