Termination of a dealer agreement in relation to price maintenance
At the end of 2007, the Court of Appeal in Arnhem issued an interesting ruling relating to termination of a dealer agreement in relation to resale price maintenance.
What was going on? A manufacturer of mattresses, box springs and bedroom furniture has terminated an indefinite dealer agreement with a local dealer (a home furnishing company) by a certain date. From the termination date, the manufacturer subsequently also no longer supplied products to this dealer.
The (ultimate) reason given by the manufacturer for the cancellation was that the local dealer was “undermining” the manufacturer’s dealer organization. The dealer had started selling products via his website at a standard discount of 20%. It should be clear that the other dealers saw this with sorrow. After all, they suffered a loss of turnover as a result. The manufacturer acknowledged that the other dealers pressured him to stop selling products at a 20% discount.
The Court concludes on the basis of the facts that the manufacturer has terminated the dealership solely to maintain the margin of the other dealers.
The interesting thing about this ruling is that the Court of Appeal then mainly approaches this issue from a practical point of view. Although the manufacturer stated that there was no resale price maintenance, indirectly this was indeed the case. After all, the dealer who did not conform to the manufacturer’s recommended price was eliminated by the termination of the dealer agreement. The Court of Appeal therefore rules that the termination is null and void and unlawful and has therefore had no effect. As a result, the Court of Appeal ordered the manufacturer to resume supplying the full range of products to the relevant dealer.
The general lesson that can be drawn from this judgment is that both direct and indirect resale price maintenance is out of the question and will not be tolerated.
Ludwig & Van Dam franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice
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.