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
Franchise Closing Sale – Who Gets the Sale Proceeds?
The judgment of the District Court of the Northern Netherlands dated 12 October 2016, ECLI:NL:RBNNE:2016:5061 (Administrator/Expert Group and Rabobank), focused on the question whether the franchisor, together with the bank,
Column Franchise+ – mr. Th.R. Ludwig: “Judge: franchisor’s duty of care comparable to that of a bank”
Various judgments in 2016 made it clear how high the standard of care for a franchisor towards its franchisees is.
Use of the internet and social media: court expands options for franchisees
In principle, the franchisee may not be prohibited from having its own website in order to also or even exclusively sell its products or services via the Internet.
Article in Entrance: “Plan damage”
“Because the municipality undertakes and renovates all sorts of things in the vicinity of my business, I have a disadvantage and I suffer damage. Can I tell those stories?"
Article in Entrance: “Rules of Fragrance”
“I am bothered by the smell that the adjacent catering business produces. Can I do something about this?"
Supermarket letter – 16
1. Buy/Sell Albert Heijn Franchise