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
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