The municipality must allow temporary Albert Heijn
On 7 February 2019, the District Court of Noord-Holland ruled (ECLI:NL:RBNNE:2019:407) on whether the municipality should allow a temporary Albert Heijn now that the municipality had made commitments, but had not signed a lease. was with the municipality and the municipal policy had meanwhile been changed.
The municipality had already granted a permit to establish a temporary Albert Heijn supermarket. The municipality had also not only expressed a “willingness in principle” to cooperate in the relocation of the Albert Heijn supermarket to a temporary location and even invited it to conclude a lease for the location for the temporary supermarket. The municipality also took the position that, among other things, with the arrival of a “new” (changed in composition) municipal council, a new vision has emerged and that the realization of the temporary Albert Heijn supermarket is undesirable with the new policy insights.
The judge in preliminary relief proceedings ruled that the supermarket entrepreneur could and was entitled to derive a justified expectation that the municipality would also rent out the required location following the granting of an environmental permit. The municipality is ordered to conclude a lease.
mr. AW Dolphin – franchise lawyer
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice. Do you want to respond? Go to dolphijn@ludwigvandam.nl
Other messages
Does a franchisee have to accept a new model franchise agreement?
On 31 March 2017, the District Court of Rotterdam, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2017:2457, ruled in interlocutory proceedings on the question whether franchisor Bram Ladage had complied with the franchise agreement with its franchisee.
Mandatory (market-based) purchase prices for franchisees
To what extent can a franchisor change agreements about the (market) purchase prices of the goods that the franchisees are obliged to purchase?
Director’s liability of a franchisee after failing to rely on an unsound prognosis.
On 11 July 2017, the Court of Appeal of 's-Hertogenbosch made a decision on whether the franchisor could successfully sue the director of a BV for non-compliance with the
Liability accountant for prepared prognosis?
In a judgment of the Court of Appeal of 's-Hertogenbosch of 11 July 2017, ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2017:3153, it was discussed that franchisees accused the franchisor's accountant of being liable
How far does the bank’s duty of care extend?
Some time ago the question was raised in case law what the position of the bank is in the triangular relationship franchisor – bank – franchisee.
Burden of proof reversal in forecasting as misleading advertising?
In an interlocutory judgment of 15 June 2017, the District Court of Zeeland-West-Brabant, ECLI:NL:RBZWB:2017:3833, ruled on a claim for (among other things) suspension of the non-compete clause.