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
Judge: Protect franchisee against supermarket organization (Coop) as lessor
Does the franchisee need legal protection from supermarket franchisor Coop? The District Court of Rotterdam ruled on 9 February 2018, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2018:1151, that this is the case.
Acquisition fraud vs. error in franchise forecasting
Who has to prove that the franchisor's forecast is unsound? In principle, this is the franchisee. If the franchisee invokes the Acquisition Fraud Act, it may be that
Obligation to sell back at the end of the franchise agreement
Franchise agreements sometimes provide that the franchisee is required to sell back purchased assets at the end of the franchise agreement.
Supermarket letter – 20
Uncertain legal position of Emté franchisees
Position of franchisees in franchisor restructuring
Franchisees must be adequately and generously informed in advance by the franchisor about the content and consequences of (further) agreements...
Interview Franchise+ – mrs. J. Sterk and AW Dolphijn – “Reversal of burden of proof in forecasts approved by court” – February 2018
The new Acquisition Fraud Act indeed appears to be relevant for the franchise industry, according to this article from Franchise+. Alex Dolphijn of Ludwig & Van Dam assists a franchisee in a