The exclusive catchment area and the exclusive delivery
On 20 April 2016, the District Court of Amsterdam (ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2016:2360) ruled on the question whether a franchisor could have allowed competitive activities in the exclusive territory of a franchisee. Another issue was whether the franchisor was allowed to supply a nearby competitor.
The franchisor operates a large industrial bakery and various franchise formulas, including “Bakkerij ‘t Stoepje” (hereinafter: ‘t Stoepje). The franchisee operates the formula ‘t Stoepje, among other things from a market stall on the Wednesday market in a certain place.
Another entrepreneur, initially under a different formula from the franchisor and later under his own name, operated the same type of market stall and on the same Wednesday market. A license had been issued for both to trade in cakes, bread and pastries on the same Wednesday market. The franchisee took action against the franchisor, as well as against the other entrepreneur, because he was in competition and the franchisee considered this unacceptable.
The court notes that in the (standard) agreements that exclusive areas explicitly do not apply to markets. Moreover, it was not operated according to the same formula. The court further rules that if the duty of care requires the franchisor to ensure that a forgiven exclusive territory must be respected, then it has not been argued that the franchisor should not be allowed to sell its merchandise to a non-franchisee. The question is therefore whether the franchisor’s duty of care also extends to the sale of its merchandise to a competing company located in the vicinity of the franchisee. The court did not answer this question because the franchisee had not made that accusation. If the franchisee had done so, it might have been considered that the franchisee has a point here. The cooperation in franchising aims to achieve a win-win situation. If the franchisor deliberately and directly places its merchandise with a direct competitor of the franchisee, it is not inconceivable that the franchisee will thereby act against the franchisor in violation of the purpose and intent of the franchise agreement.
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
Judge anticipates Franchise Act: no mandatory formula change (without threshold value)
The District Court of Amsterdam ruled that a Blokker franchisee is not obliged to renovate the store in accordance with the latest formula principles, as instructed by Blokker.
Interview Mr. J. Sterk and mr. C. Rutten in Franchise+: “Call to the automotive sector: prepare yourself well for the new Franchise Act” dated October 2, 2020
The new Franchise Act has a broad effect, also in the automotive sector. But are people aware of it enough?
Article The National Franchise Guide – “Corona discount of 50% on the rent” – mr. AW Dolphijn – dated September 15, 2020
Disappointing turnover due to the corona crisis may mean that the rent is halved, even if the rent is partly turnover-related.
Article Franchise+ – “Franchisor uses “derivative formula” (without his knowledge)” – mr. AW Dolphijn – dated September 9, 2020
Many franchisors will not be aware of the fact that they use a "derived formula" as referred to in the Franchise Act.
Article Franchise+ – “Obligations and rights of the starting franchisee” – mr. AW Dolphijn – dd
What should you pay attention to as a starting franchisee, what are your obligations and what are your rights when concluding the franchise agreement?
Article Mr. C. Damen – Three conditions for the right to customer compensation for the agent upon termination of the agency agreement – dated August 26, 2020
In the agency relationship between an agent and a client (the principal), the parties record their cooperation agreements in an agency agreement. When the principal enters into the agency agreement