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
On the edge of a franchisee’s exclusive territory
The Court of Appeal of Arnhem-Leeuwarden ruled on 15 May 2018, ECLI:NL:GHARL:2018:4395, on the question whether a franchisor has a branch just over the edge of the exclusively granted protection area.
Can a franchisee cohabit with a competing entrepreneur?
Can a franchisee violate a non-compete clause by cohabiting with someone who runs a competing business? On January 12, 2018, the District Court of Central Netherlands ruled
Not an exclusive catchment area, but still exclusivity for the franchisee
The judgment of the District Court of Noord-Holland dated 18 April 2018, ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2018:3268, ruled on the exclusivity area of a franchisee.
Supermarket letter – 23
AH may not reduce wages when taking over personnel from AH franchisees;
Termination or dissolution of the franchise agreement by the franchisee
In principle, franchise agreements can be terminated prematurely, for example by cancellation or dissolution. On 21 March 2018, the District Court of Overijssel ruled on ECLI:NL:RBOVE:2018:1335 on
Article in Entrance: “Sending mailings”
“Can I make a file of guests' email addresses because I occasionally want to inform them online about events, promotions and new dishes?”