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
When does a franchisor go too far when recruiting franchisees?
The judgment of the Court of Appeal of Arnhem-Leeuwarden on 5 February 2019 dealt with whether the franchisor had acted impermissibly when recruiting the franchisees.
Advisory Board on Regulatory Pressure (ATR) advises State Secretary Keijzer about the Franchise Act
In short, it is first advised to actively inform franchisors and franchisees about this amendment to the law.
Post non-competition ban on services and sales franchise
When a franchise agreement ends, many franchisees encounter a prohibition in the franchise agreement to perform similar work for a period of time thereafter
The concept of the Franchise Act: impact for franchisors and franchisees – dated February 5, 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten believes that if the draft of the Franchise Act actually becomes law, a lot will change for franchisors and franchisees.
Buy franchise business and the laid off sick employee from 7 years ago
The question is whether a Bruna franchisee, when selling the franchise company to Bruna, should have stated that seven years ago an employee had left employment sick.
Court prohibits Domino’s unilateral area reduction when extending franchise agreements – dated January 28, 2019 – mr. RCWL Albers
On January 9, 2019, the District Court of Rotterdam rendered a judgment in a lawsuit initiated by the Association of Domino's Pizza Franchisees and all its members (almost all Domino's franchisees).