Termination of a Franchise Agreement
Termination of a Franchise Agreement
Franchise agreements are usually concluded for a specific period of time. Some franchise agreements stipulate that the franchise agreement is tacitly renewed or extended for a specified period. The use of the cancellation option (of a renewed or extended franchise agreement) can be a source of a dispute. On 15 December 2014, the preliminary relief judge of the District Court of East Brabant ( ECLI:NL:RBOBR:2014:8133 ) ruled in a dispute about the termination of a franchise agreement. In the preliminary opinion, the franchise agreement had been terminated in accordance with the franchise agreement and there was no reason to award an advance on compensation.
The franchise agreement stipulated that the franchise agreement could be terminated at the end of each calendar year with due observance of a notice period of three months. The franchisor had terminated the franchise agreement by letter of July 10, 2014 by December 31, 2014. According to the preliminary ruling, the franchise agreement had been terminated in accordance with the franchise agreement.
The judge also ruled that there was no reason to award damages. Further investigation is required into the question of whether the franchisor could not reasonably have made use of the option of termination or whether it should have used a longer notice period as a result of which the franchisor would be liable for damages. According to the preliminary relief judge, summary proceedings are not suitable for this.
The franchisee had summoned four legal entities of which the franchisee stated that they were all part of the same (distribution) chain. However, the franchise agreement was concluded with only one of these four legal entities. The preliminary relief judge did not follow the franchisee’s argument to assume identification or breakthrough of liability for the other three defendants. The mere fact that the four parties have offices at the same address or have the same (indirect) directors is insufficient.
This judgment once again shows that summary proceedings often follow the strict text of the franchise agreement.
Mr AW Dolphijn – Franchise lawyer
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice. Do you want to respond? Mail to dolphijn@ludwigvandam.nl
Other messages
Duty of care franchisor in the pre-contractual phase
The District Court of Limburg ruled on 6 April 2017, ECLI:NL:RBLIM:2016:2843, that the franchisor has a duty of care towards the prospective franchisee in the pre-contractual phase.
Franchisee avoids joint and several liability in private
In a judgment of 28 March 2018, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2018:2913, the District Court of Rotterdam ruled on the meaning of the clause in the franchise agreement stipulating that
Incorrect prognosis due to lack of location research
The District Court of The Hague ruled on 21 March 2018, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2018:3348, that a franchisor's forecast was unsound, as a result of which the franchisee had erred and the franchisor
Column Franchise+ – “Disputes about franchise fees”
Lately, it has also hit the biggest franchise organizations in the Netherlands. At the formulas of Albert Heijn, Hema, Etos, Bruna and Olympia, for example, there was and will be a lot
Ludwig & Van Dam sponsor of the Franchise Trophy 2018
On May 24, 2018, VVD member of parliament Martin Wörsdörfer and ID&T founder Duncan Stutterheim will present the Franchise Trophy 2018 on behalf of the Dutch Franchise Association.
Column Franchise+ – “Flashing quarrels about franchise fee must stop”
Lately, it has also hit the biggest franchise organizations in the Netherlands. At the formulas of Albert Heijn, HEMA, Etos, Bruna and Olympia, for example, there was and will be a lot