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
Franchisee obliged to cooperate with formula change?
On 24 March 2017, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2017:1860, the preliminary relief judge of the Amsterdam District Court once again considered the issue in which Intertoys wishes to convert Bart Smit's stores
Delivery stop by franchisor not allowed
On 9 February 2017, the preliminary relief judge of the District Court of Gelderland, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2017:1372, ruled that a franchisor had not fulfilled its obligation to supply the franchisee
Alex Dolphijn in the Financial Dagblad about the judgment of the Supreme Court regarding Street-One
Franchisors more liable for incorrect forecasts Franchisees can now more easily hold their parent organization liable for incorrect profit and turnover forecasts.
Supermarket letter – 17
Supreme Court: More quickly liable for forecasts
Article in Entrance: “Small print”
“When I do business with a supplier, I never read the fine print. Recently I noticed that there are all kinds of things in it that I actually do not agree with.
Column Franchise+ – mr. Th.R. Ludwig: “Delivery stop by franchisor again not allowed”
Once again, the president in preliminary relief proceedings ruled on the question whether a franchisor's supply stop against the franchisee was permitted, with the franchisee paying a substantial