Termination or dissolution of the franchise agreement by the franchisee
In principle, franchise agreements can be terminated prematurely, for example by cancellation or dissolution. On 21 March 2018, the District Court of Overijssel, ECLI:NL:RBOVE:2018:1335, ruled on the question whether a franchisee had validly terminated the franchise agreement prematurely.
The franchisor had wanted to use summary proceedings to ensure that the cooperation between the parties would be resumed immediately, now that the franchisee had discontinued it. The franchise agreement contained rules about early termination. However, the franchisee had not signed the franchise agreement and in the context of the preliminary relief proceedings the court disregarded the provisions of the franchise agreement. It has been established, however, that the parties had in any case concluded an (oral) continuing performance contract.
The franchisee had already indicated to the franchisor for some time that he wished to terminate the franchise agreement as soon as possible. Instead of terminating the franchise agreement, the franchisee had terminated the franchise agreement. However, the franchisee had not sufficiently substantiated and substantiated that the franchisor had failed. It had therefore not become plausible that it was justified to terminate the franchise agreements.
Since the franchisee had not terminated the franchise agreement, which may under certain circumstances be possible to terminate, and the dissolution was not legally valid, the (verbally) concluded franchise agreement must be complied with.
mr. AW Dolphijn – franchise lawyer
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice. Do you want to respond? Go to dolphijn@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.