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
Interests Association of Franchisees of the Netherlands (BVFN) is in further consultation with the Minister
On April 16, 2014, the previously announced meeting between the Belangen Vereniging Franchisenemers Nederland (BVFN) and the Ministry of Economic Affairs took place.
Exoneration of duty of care with the franchisor’s prognosis
In a judgment of the Overijssel court of 9 April 2014, the interesting question arose whether a collaboration should be qualified as a franchise.
Non-competition clause is lost in summary proceedings
Recently, the preliminary relief judge in Rotterdam ruled that a franchisee was not bound by the non-competition clause included in the franchise agreement.
Advance on compensation after an unsound prognosis
In a beautifully substantiated summary judgment of the Northern Netherlands Court of 9 April 2014, the question was whether an advance should be paid for the damage assessment procedure.
Collection point requires shopping destination
In my supermarket newsletter of July 11, 2013, I already predicted that the establishment of collection points for goods ordered via the internet would set the judicial pens in motion.
Developments and sales via the internet.
Developments and sales via the internet.