Sandd franchisees find satisfaction in nullifying Sandd and PostNL merger – dated 12 June 2020
The franchisees of mail delivery company Sandd went to the in November
judge, assisted by Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten. The franchisees
accused the State Secretary of negligent weighing of interests
made. Where the Secretary of State submitted a bill to
protection of the franchisees, Sandd’s franchisees become in
the whole thing was left behind in the merger with PostNL by the same
Secretary of State.
The Association of Franchisees of Sandd (VFS) says in a response that the
judgment of the Rotterdam court is a form of satisfaction, although
reversing the merger ‘unrealistic’. President Mario de
Koning: ‘But it is a paper settlement. We want our gram
and we have not been so much against the merger as against it
unilateral termination of contracts in the very short term. On a neat
saying goodbye to each other was not an issue. Some
franchisees had to liquidate their businesses. That has been a drama
for these family businesses.’ DeVFS has another civil case against Sandd
and PostNL at the court in Arnhem. Bet is an indemnity
for suffered (contract) damage.
See also the Financieele Dagblad of 12 June 2020 (download at the bottom right of this message).
mr. AW Dolphijn – franchise lawyer
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice. Do you want to respond? Go to dolphijn@ludwigvandam.nl
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.