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
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



