Tenancy law and franchise: approval of deviating terms in the tenancy agreement, despite material infringement and the lack of an equal social position between the tenant and landlord
franchisor, franchisee, lessee
The District Court of Rotterdam recently ruled in a rental case in which the landlord, Markthal Rotterdam BV, requested approval of a number of deviating rental clauses in the rental agreement with its tenant.
A deviating clause will only be approved if the clause does not materially affect the rights that the tenant derives from Section 7.4.6 or if his position in society compared to that of the lessor is such that he does not reasonably need the protection of Section 7.4.6.
This judgment of the Rotterdam District Court can be called special because in the present case there is indeed a substantial infringement of the tenant’s rights and the lack of an equivalent social position. The decisive factor for the approval by the subdistrict court was that, despite the deviating stipulations, the rights of the tenant are still sufficiently guaranteed by the landlord, partly due to the long term of the lease, the limited investments by the tenant and the undertaking by the landlord to offer replacement business space at the end of the lease.
Franchisors/landlords regularly ask the subdistrict court for approval of deviating clauses in the lease, for example because they want to link the term of the lease to the term of the franchise agreement or the term of the main lease. The fact that there is no equal social position between the franchisor/landlord and the franchisee/lessee is undisputed and unchangeable. What a franchisor/landlord can do to obtain approval is to ensure that there are sufficient guarantees for the franchisee/lessee. Both during the term of the rental agreement and afterwards.
Mr AC van Engel – Franchise lawyer
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice. Do you want to respond? Mail to vanengel@ludwigvandam.nl
Other messages
Article in Entrance: “New owner”
“The catering company where I work has been taken over. The new owner now says that I no longer have to work for him, but can he refuse me as an employee?”
Directors’ liability in the settlement of a franchise agreement
Privately, can the director of a franchisee legal entity be liable to the franchisor if the franchisee legal entity wrongfully fails to provide business to the franchisor?
Column Franchise + – mr. Th.R. Ludwig: “Towards strict liability”
The Supreme Court recently ruled in a prognosis issue.
Article in Entrance: “Rentals”
“The landlord increased the prices of the property every year, but he hasn't done this for 2 years, maybe he forgets. Can he still claim an overdue amount later?”
No valid appeal to non-compete clause in franchising
On 28 February 2017, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2017:1469, the provisional relief judge of the District Court of Gelderland ruled on whether a franchisee could be bound by a non-compete clause.
Structurally unsound revenue forecasts from the franchisor
On 15 March 2017, the District Court of Limburg ruled in eight similar judgments (including ECLI:NL:RBLIM:2017:2344) on the franchise agreements of various franchisees of the P3 franchise formula.