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
Column Franchise+ – mr. J. Sterk – “Franchisee does body check better than franchise check”
A gym embarks on a franchise concept that offers “Body Checks” and discounts to (potential) members in collaboration with health insurers.
Seminar Mrs. J. Sterk and M. Munnik – Thursday, November 2, 2017: “Important legal developments for franchisors”
Attorneys Jeroen Sterk and Maaike Munnik of Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten will update you on the status of and developments surrounding the Dutch Franchise Code and the Acquisition Fraude Act.
Goodwill at end of franchise agreement
In a case before the Amsterdam Court of Appeal on 26 September 2017, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:3900 (Seal & Go), a franchisee claimed compensation for goodwill (ex Article 7:308 of the Dutch Civil Code) after the
Article in Entrance: “Resignation”
Fire an employee who is not performing well? The subdistrict court is strict. If you, as an employer, cannot demonstrate that you have done everything yourself to make the person function better, it will be
Cost price that is too high as a hidden franchise fee
An interlocutory judgment of the District Court of The Hague dated 30 August 2017, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2017:10597 (Happy Nurse) shows that the court has considered the question whether the
Supermarket letter – 19
Coop liability for damages due to non-performance towards the franchisee