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
Bankrupt because the franchisor refused to sell the franchise company – dated January 28, 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The District Court of The Hague has dealt with a request from a franchisor to declare a franchisee bankrupt.
Prescribed shop fitting – dated January 28, 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Midden-Nederland District Court has ruled on whether a franchisee is obliged to carry the shop fittings prescribed by the franchisor.
Ludwig & Van Dam attorneys summon Sandd and PostNL on behalf of the Sandd franchisees – dated 9 January 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Association of Franchisees of Sandd (VFS) has today summoned Sandd and PostNL before the court in Arnhem. The VFS believes that Sandd and PostNL are letting the franchisees down hard.
Article The National Franchise Guide: “Why joint and several liability, for example, next to private?” – dated 7 January 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
Franchisees are often asked to co-sign the franchise agreement in addition to their franchise, for example. Sometimes franchisees refuse to do so and the franchise agreement is not signed.
Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten assists Sandd franchisees: Franchisees Sandd challenge postal monopoly in court – dated 12 November 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Association of Franchisees of Sandd (VFS) is challenging the decision of State Secretary Mona Keijzer to approve the postal merger between PostNL and Sandd before the court in Rotterdam.
Franchisee trapped by non-compete clause? – dated October 21, 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
The District Court of East Brabant has ruled that a franchisee was still bound by the non-competition clause in the event of premature termination of the franchise agreement.