Well begun is half done: adequate link between franchise and sublease agreement
If you – in your capacity as franchisor – wish to expand your franchise formula, a number of matters must be properly arranged in advance. Of course you must have a franchise agreement that complies with national and European law regulations. Another subject that, in my opinion, should be adequately arranged before entering into a new franchise agreement is the relationship between franchisor/landlord and franchisee/tenant. I would now like to elaborate on this last subject.
In both the franchise agreement and the rental agreement, a provision is usually included stating that if the franchise agreement ends, this automatically leads to the end of the rental agreement (hereinafter I refer to this provision as a “linking provision”). However, such a binding provision is contrary to the mandatory provisions of tenancy law. The law stipulates that the term of a lease agreement relating to the lease of industrial space must be for 5 years (with an option to extend for another 5 years). In that case, the lessee (or the franchisee) has the option of annulling the binding provision. This is a rather rigorous sanction. This is because annulment has retroactive effect, which means that the linking provision is deemed never to have existed.
However, such destruction can be prevented if the subdistrict court judge approves the linking provision. The franchisor/landlord can therefore request the subdistrict court judge to approve the – in principle – prohibited linking provision before entering into the lease and franchise agreement. It is even possible that both the franchisor and the franchisee jointly apply to the subdistrict court.
The subdistrict court will grant the request if the tenant’s rights are not materially affected and the social position of the tenant compared to that of the landlord is such that he (the tenant) does not reasonably need that protection.
The starting point here is that the court will in principle exercise restraint in approving linking provisions. However, if there is a joint request from the franchisee and the franchisor before entering into the lease and franchise relationship, in which the parties involved also put forward arguments that substantiate that the assessment criteria stated above are met, the subdistrict court may grant the request. assigns.
It becomes considerably more difficult if (only) the franchisor applies to the subdistrict court during the term of the lease to still approve the linking provision. In that case, it is more nuanced whether the subdistrict court judge will grant the request, but it is not impossible. Furthermore, the franchisor/landlord runs the risk that the franchisee/lessee will nullify the clause before approval is granted. Approval of a clause that is deemed not to have existed is not possible. It is therefore very important to request the subdistrict court judge to approve the linking provision before entering into the franchise and rental agreement or to do so well-considered during the process. If desired, Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten can assist you in guiding this process.
Ludwig & Van Dam franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice

Other messages
Bankrupt because the franchisor refused to sell the franchise company – dated January 28, 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The District Court of The Hague has dealt with a request from a franchisor to declare a franchisee bankrupt.
Prescribed shop fitting – dated January 28, 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Midden-Nederland District Court has ruled on whether a franchisee is obliged to carry the shop fittings prescribed by the franchisor.
Ludwig & Van Dam attorneys summon Sandd and PostNL on behalf of the Sandd franchisees – dated 9 January 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Association of Franchisees of Sandd (VFS) has today summoned Sandd and PostNL before the court in Arnhem. The VFS believes that Sandd and PostNL are letting the franchisees down hard.
Article The National Franchise Guide: “Why joint and several liability, for example, next to private?” – dated 7 January 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
Franchisees are often asked to co-sign the franchise agreement in addition to their franchise, for example. Sometimes franchisees refuse to do so and the franchise agreement is not signed.
Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten assists Sandd franchisees: Franchisees Sandd challenge postal monopoly in court – dated 12 November 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Association of Franchisees of Sandd (VFS) is challenging the decision of State Secretary Mona Keijzer to approve the postal merger between PostNL and Sandd before the court in Rotterdam.
Franchisee trapped by non-compete clause? – dated October 21, 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
The District Court of East Brabant has ruled that a franchisee was still bound by the non-competition clause in the event of premature termination of the franchise agreement.



