Supermarket competed by its own landlord
On 15 July 2014, the Court of Noord-Holland in interlocutory proceedings (ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2014:9635) made an interesting ruling about the competition of a supermarket by its own lessor.
At issue was the situation in which the lessor (namely Deen) leased a supermarket business space to Jumbo Supermarkets, which operated a Jumbo supermarket in the leased property. Deen has also started operating its own Deen supermarket in the immediate vicinity of this business premises.
The preliminary relief judge ruled that the landlord’s competitive actions must in principle be sanctioned and refers to a judgment of the Supreme Court of 17 December, ECLI:NL:HR:2004:AR2768 (Dunnewind-Schuitema), where this was determined. However, because this Danish supermarket was not a real full-service supermarket, as the Jumbo supermarket is, but rather a kind of “AH to go”, there was hardly any real competition. In that specific case, therefore, there was no question of a disturbance in the enjoyment of the rental. However, if there really is competition from the landlord, this can indeed be sanctioned.
It should also be noted that the rental agreement contained a non-compete clause. According to Jumbo, the parties have agreed that Deen would refrain from competing activities. Deen contested that explanation with reasons. According to Deen, it was only the intention that Jumbo would be indemnified against a claim for own use on the part of Deen. Deen points out that a non-compete clause has not been agreed and that Deen, as a supermarket chain, would certainly not include a non-compete clause in the rental agreements with third parties. In the opinion of the preliminary relief judge, Jumbo subsequently made its explanation insufficiently plausible. The appeal on the non-compete clause is therefore rejected.
Good and clear agreements between landlords and tenants about the arrival of competitors in the neighborhood over which the landlord has influence promote the certainty and continuity of successful cooperation.
mr. AW Dolphijn – Franchise lawyer Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice. Do you want to respond? Mail to dolphijn@ludwigvandam.nl
Other messages
Bankrupt because the franchisor refused to sell the franchise company – dated January 28, 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The District Court of The Hague has dealt with a request from a franchisor to declare a franchisee bankrupt.
Prescribed shop fitting – dated January 28, 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Midden-Nederland District Court has ruled on whether a franchisee is obliged to carry the shop fittings prescribed by the franchisor.
Ludwig & Van Dam attorneys summon Sandd and PostNL on behalf of the Sandd franchisees – dated 9 January 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Association of Franchisees of Sandd (VFS) has today summoned Sandd and PostNL before the court in Arnhem. The VFS believes that Sandd and PostNL are letting the franchisees down hard.
Article The National Franchise Guide: “Why joint and several liability, for example, next to private?” – dated 7 January 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
Franchisees are often asked to co-sign the franchise agreement in addition to their franchise, for example. Sometimes franchisees refuse to do so and the franchise agreement is not signed.
Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten assists Sandd franchisees: Franchisees Sandd challenge postal monopoly in court – dated 12 November 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Association of Franchisees of Sandd (VFS) is challenging the decision of State Secretary Mona Keijzer to approve the postal merger between PostNL and Sandd before the court in Rotterdam.
Franchisee trapped by non-compete clause? – dated October 21, 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
The District Court of East Brabant has ruled that a franchisee was still bound by the non-competition clause in the event of premature termination of the franchise agreement.