Vacancy lawyer-employee
Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten is a law firm that specializes entirely in franchise and other partnerships and is the market leader of its kind in the Netherlands. The office has extensive knowledge and experience and is characterized by a high level of thinking and working. Due to growth of the practice, we are looking for a:
Attorney-at-law
Specific experience in the franchise practice is a plus.
We offer a working environment where you can work and develop in an excellent and relaxed collegial atmosphere. Some relevant work experience is desirable.
Information can be requested from Mr. DL van Dam, e-mail address: vandam@ludwigvandam.nl, mr. J. Sterk e-mail address:sterk@ludwigvandam.nl or mr. AW Dolphijn, e-mail address: dolphijn@ludwigvandam.nl, to whom the application letter can also be addressed.
Other messages
Infringement of non-competition clause, where is the limit?
In this matter, a former freelancer of massage parlor Doctor Feelgood started his own massage parlor under the name Feelgood-store.
Research into numbers of franchise procedures
We recently published a brief survey of franchise jurisprudence over the past six years on the website.
Violation of duty of care affects exoneration
In a dispute about an appeal to an exoneration clause in the franchise agreement by the franchisor, it was considered that the nature of the franchise agreement should be taken into account
Supermarket letter – 5
Acquisition of a supermarket location by terminating the lease at the expense of the sitting tenant is allowed by the Supreme Court.
Acquisition of a supermarket location by terminating the lease at the expense of the sitting tenant is allowed by the Supreme Court
On 25 April 2014, the Supreme Court confirmed for the second time that the waiting period of three years for termination of the rental agreement for retail space due to urgent personal use after the purchase of the property
Unauthorized unilateral collective fee increase by the franchisor
In an important decision of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal of 23 April 2014, the question was whether a franchisor was allowed to implement an increase in a contribution.