Silent extension
Many franchise agreements contain provisions governing the termination and possible continuation of the existing franchise agreement. It is quite often included in the franchise agreement that the agreement is tacitly renewed under the same conditions if neither party, franchisor or franchisee, cancels. Is such a regulation permissible under all circumstances?
If there is a sublease situation in which the franchisee rents from the franchisor, this is permissible in all cases as long as the sublease agreement continues and the market share of the relevant franchise organization does not exceed 30%. Please note that this market share can be regional or local as well as national.
If there is no question of subletting, tacit renewal is still possible as long as the market share of the franchise organization is below 15%. Contrary to what is sometimes thought, tacit renewal of a franchise agreement is therefore often possible in practice. It should be noted, however, that the regulation on which the possibility of tacit renewal is based for a market share of less than 15% can in theory be set aside by the court or the Netherlands Competition Authority (NMa). In a specific practical case, however, the NMa ruled that the regulation in question had to be fully respected.
When extending the franchise agreement, it is therefore really not necessary in all cases to conclude a new agreement and therefore necessarily sit down together. A simple clause that properly regulates tacit renewal for the parties is often sufficient.
Ludwig & Van Dam franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice
Other messages
Does a franchisee have to accept a new model franchise agreement?
On 31 March 2017, the District Court of Rotterdam, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2017:2457, ruled in interlocutory proceedings on the question whether franchisor Bram Ladage had complied with the franchise agreement with its franchisee.
Mandatory (market-based) purchase prices for franchisees
To what extent can a franchisor change agreements about the (market) purchase prices of the goods that the franchisees are obliged to purchase?
Director’s liability of a franchisee after failing to rely on an unsound prognosis.
On 11 July 2017, the Court of Appeal of 's-Hertogenbosch made a decision on whether the franchisor could successfully sue the director of a BV for non-compliance with the
Liability accountant for prepared prognosis?
In a judgment of the Court of Appeal of 's-Hertogenbosch of 11 July 2017, ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2017:3153, it was discussed that franchisees accused the franchisor's accountant of being liable
How far does the bank’s duty of care extend?
Some time ago the question was raised in case law what the position of the bank is in the triangular relationship franchisor – bank – franchisee.
Burden of proof reversal in forecasting as misleading advertising?
In an interlocutory judgment of 15 June 2017, the District Court of Zeeland-West-Brabant, ECLI:NL:RBZWB:2017:3833, ruled on a claim for (among other things) suspension of the non-compete clause.