\n On 15 July 2019, the District Court of Overijssel, ECLI:NL:RBOVE:2019:3337,
\n adjudicated on the question of termination of a franchise agreement
\n the light of the substantial modification of the rented retail space.\n<\/p>\n
\n A continuing performance contract existed between the franchisee and the franchisor
\n indefinitely. The franchisee rented a business space from a
\n third. The landlord had terminated the lease by December 1, 2019. The
\n franchisee was unable to negotiate a new one with the landlord
\n to conclude a rental agreement. The franchisor managed to get one
\n come to a new lease with the landlord, albeit that the
\n the relevant business space would be rented out in a larger and more luxurious manner.\n<\/p>\n
\n The franchisee did not wish to continue the franchise agreement,
\n because with the larger, older business space, the costs for the
\n franchisee would increase. Consider a higher throughput
\n rental costs and refurbishment costs. Also, the franchisee would be more
\n become dependent on the franchisor, now the franchisor also
\n become a landlord.
\n \n<\/p>\n
\n The franchisee had the franchise agreement almost immediately on July 1
\n terminated in 2019 and the obligations under the franchise agreement,
\n including the purchase obligation, no longer fulfilled.
\n \n<\/p>\n
\n The franchise agreement was terminated as soon as possible
\n to allow the company to stand on its own two feet, so that, partly because of this, it can move quickly
\n can be moved elsewhere, without being (further) dependent
\n from the franchisor. It should be expected to work
\n to find suitable affordable housing for well before December 1, 2019
\n his business nearby. This date December 1, 2019 was also the
\n date on which the landlord terminated the lease.
\n \n<\/p>\n
\n However, the franchisor believes that the termination of the
\n franchise agreement has been too abrupt and has left it for the
\n franchisor has been made impossible to adequately respond to the upcoming
\n (temporary) situation.
\n \n<\/p>\n
\n The court ruled that a reasonable notice period had been observed
\n must be made by the franchisee and that the cancellation has to be made first
\n apply from October 1, 2019, instead of July 1, 2019. That date as
\n termination date of what has been agreed upon by the parties does more justice
\n the mutual interests, as outlined above, according to the
\n right. During the notice period, the franchisee is sentenced to
\n still make exclusive purchases from the franchisor.
\n \n<\/p>\n
\n It remains difficult to find a good balance between the interests of and
\n again if circumstances change without the parties having much influence
\n finished.
\n \n<\/p>\n
\n <\/b>\n<\/p>\n
\n mr. AW Dolphijn \u2013 franchise lawyer\n<\/p>\n
\n Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice. Want
\n you respond?\n<\/p>\n