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
The manager (employee) who becomes a franchisee – fictitious employment?
On 14 December 2016, the subdistrict court judge of the District Court of Noord-Holland, ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2016:11031 (Employee/Espresso Lounge), considered the situation in which an employee
The Supreme Court sets strict requirements for franchise forecasts
A ruling by the Supreme Court on Friday casts a new light on the provision of profit and turnover forecasts to aspiring franchisees.
Infringement of exclusive service area by franchisor in connection with formula change dated February 27, 2017
On 30 January 2017, the provisional relief judge of the District Court of Noord-Holland, ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2017:688 (Intertoys/franchisee), was asked how to deal with the
Forecasts at startup franchise formula
The Amsterdam Court of Appeal ruled on 14 February 2017, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:455 (Tot Straks/franchisee) on the question whether the franchisor had provided an unsatisfactory prognosis and whether the
Mandatory transfer of franchise business to franchisor?
On January 23, 2017, the District Court of Amsterdam, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2017:412 (CoffeeCompany/Dam Spirit BV) rendered a judgment on the question whether a franchisee upon termination of the cooperation
Transfer customer data to franchisor
In its judgment of 10 January 2017, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:68 (OnlineAccountants.nl), the Amsterdam Court ruled, among other things, on the question of how customer data should be transferred.