Termination of lease agreement after purchase of retail space
High Council
At the end of 2010, the Supreme Court ruled on the waiting period that applies to termination due to urgent personal use. From a legal point of view, the purchaser of retail space must observe a three-year waiting period after acquiring it and informing the tenant of this acquisition before being terminated due to urgent own use, for example due to renovation.
At the end of last year, however, the Supreme Court ruled that this waiting period only applies after termination of the lease due to urgent personal use at the end of the first lease term, ie the first five years. In particular for scarce retail spaces, this means that it becomes easier for buyers of such real estate, often scarce supermarket locations, to compete in this way, because, in cases where the lease lasts longer than the first term, that lease is can cancel after purchase, due to a weighing of interests and/or urgent personal use. In that case, in principle, only a contribution towards the removal and refurbishment costs is due to the tenant. In addition, where applicable, one may be obliged to reimburse the benefit that one enjoys from exercising a similar activity after eviction. This could therefore be a reason for (prospective) tenants to consider entering into the lease for a longer period than, as a rule, five years. It goes without saying that entering into the duration of a rental agreement should always be weighed against other risks. Furthermore, the question remains whether the line currently being taken by the Supreme Court will hold up in other and subsequent cases.
In the case of mixed lease/franchise agreements, this means, among other things, that the subtenant/franchisee runs a greater risk of (premature) termination of the (sub)lease agreement and, as a result, a greater interest may arise for the parties. and with the prior permission of the subdistrict court judge.
Mr J. Sterk – Franchise lawyer
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice Would you like to respond? Mail to info@ludwigvandam.nl

Other messages
No non-compete violation by franchisee – mr. AW Dolphijn – dated February 4, 2021
On 20 January 2021, the District Court of Rotterdam, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2021:657, ...
(Partially) similar activities not in conflict with non-compete clause – mr. RCWL Albers – dated February 4, 2021
In recent proceedings, two (former) franchisees were sued by their ...
Court issues groundbreaking verdict: Rent reduction in substantive proceedings for catering operators as a result of the lockdown – mr. C. Damen – dated February 1, 2021
Last Wednesday, a controversial ruling was made and published for ...
Article Franchise+ -The risks of a minimum turnover requirement in the franchise agreement for the franchisor
Including a minimum turnover to be achieved in the franchise ...
Article The National Franchise Guide: “Minimum turnover as a forecast”
For many years now, the responsibility and liability of the ...
Article Franchise+ – “Franchise statistics 2019: decline trend continues, caused by the Franchise Act?”- mr. J. Sterk, mr. M. Munnik and mr. JAJ Devilee
Since 2007, Ludwig & Van Dam attorneys have been periodically ...



