Court of Dordrecht <\/b><\/p>\n
Franchisor terminated the franchise agreement with the franchisee. The franchise agreement stipulated that termination of the franchise agreement would also terminate the sublease agreement. However, the subdistrict court does not follow this reasoning at all. The termination of the rental agreement does not comply with the legal provisions and is therefore not legally valid. The stipulations in the lease on which the franchisor relies are deviating stipulations that have not been approved in advance by the subdistrict court judge and are therefore null and void.<\/p>\n
In its recently issued judgment, the subdistrict court also considers that, although the franchise agreement and the rental agreement state that agreements are inextricably linked and that the end of one agreement also ends the other, there is no question of a so-called mixed agreement, and that the legal rent regime would also have been set aside. After all, both agreements can also exist independently of each other.<\/p>\n
A proper link in advance with approval by the subdistrict court judge might have led to a different judgment. It is also remarkable that the Supreme Court has followed the doctrine of mixed agreements in recent years. Lower case law, however, apparently assumes the mandatory tenancy regime in which the franchise agreement exists separately from the sublease agreement, so that the franchisee enjoys full rent protection.<\/p>\n
Mr Th.R. Ludwig \u2013 Franchise lawyer<\/p>\n