The franchise formula as the destination of the rented property
The Amsterdam Court of Appeal recently ruled on the question of whether a rental agreement can be dissolved and the rented property should be vacated, because the renting franchisee acted contrary to the destination clause in the rental agreement. That clause prescribed use of the leased property according to the franchise formula. See: http://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inziendocument?id=ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2013:4913&keyword=franchise
The tenant, who is also the franchisee, defended himself against the claims, arguing, among other things, that the formula in practice deviated strongly from what had been agreed in writing at the time.
The Court of Appeal has established that a franchise formula is usually subject to development, and that this is all the more true in this case since the lessee is the formula’s first and only franchisee. The franchise agreement also stipulates that the franchisee is obliged to cooperate in the further development of the formula. The Court of Appeal ruled that it can be argued against the franchisee that he violated the destination clause in the rental agreement because he did not meet the essential characteristics of the formula.
It follows from this ruling that franchisees should be vigilant when interpreting the franchise formula, especially if the formula is relatively new and under development. Franchisors would do well to include a clause in the rental agreement that the tenant is obliged to use the formula, as well as that the tenant is obliged to cooperate in the further development of the formula.
Mr AW Dolphin – Franchise attorney
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys,franchise legal advice. Do you want to respond? Mail to dolphijn@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