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
Article Franchise+ – “Immediate information obligations of franchisors upon operation of the Franchise Act” – mr. AW Dolphijn – dated June 25, 2020
As soon as the Franchise Act enters into force, this will have an immediate effect on franchise agreements that already exist. The question is whether the information flows are set up optimally from a legal point of view.
Senate will adopt Franchise Act – dated 24 June 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The House of Representatives had unanimously adopted the proposal to introduce the Franchise Act on 16 June 2020
Franchise Act passed by the House of Representatives – dated 16 June 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Franchise Act was adopted by the House of Representatives on 16 June 2020.
Sandd franchisees find satisfaction in nullifying Sandd and PostNL merger – dated 12 June 2020
The franchisees of mail delivery company Sandd went to court in November, assisted by Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten. Court of Rotterdam rules on takeover by PostNL.
Plenary debate dated June 9, 2020 in the Lower House of the Franchise Act – dated June 10, 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
On 9 June 2020, the legislative proposal for the Franchise Act was discussed in plenary in the House of Representatives. An amendment and a motion have been tabled.
Franchising is “a bottleneck in tackling healthcare fraud” – dated 10 June 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
According to the various supervisory authorities in the healthcare sector, franchise constructions can be seen as a non-transparent business construction in which the supervision of professional and