If a rental property is obliged to be closed due to corona, this may be the case
\n are entitled to a rent reduction, according to the court
\n North Netherlands.<\/p>\n
\n On 27 May 2020, the District Court of the Northern Netherlands ruled that the tenant
\n rightly stated that closure of the leased property as a result of a
\n government measure may be a defect in the rented property. The tenant can
\n after all, not use what he rented. The law stipulates that
\n a defect that the tenant can in principle claim (with retroactive effect).
\n make a rent reduction.\n<\/p>\n
\n The matter in question related to a situation where InBev was a tenant of
\n a real estate investor, and InBev sublet to a hospitality entrepreneur.
\n Such constructions of hiring in and out are also included
\n franchising relationships. InBev had offered two-thirds
\n of the rent for April and May, after which the catering entrepreneur
\n (the subtenant) the remainder of one third of these months
\n pay to the real estate investor. The real estate investor did not want this and
\n demanded full and timely rent payment in interlocutory proceedings. The court
\n considers that InBev rightly states that closure of the leased property is a consequence
\n of a government measure if a defect in the rented property is visible. Mead
\n given the unforeseeable circumstances, is entitled to
\n rent reduction. The claim for payment of the
\n full rent is therefore rejected. Depending on the specific
\n circumstances and the content of the rental agreements are also possible
\n Of course, other outcomes are conceivable.\n<\/p>\n
\n Both the franchisor and the franchisee do well together
\n to take action against the main lessor, such as the brewery and
\n hospitality entrepreneur also successfully did so in this matter. Together
\n can they enter into consultation with the main lessor for a reasonable
\n to find a solution.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
\n mr. AW Dolphijn \u2013 franchise lawyer\n<\/p>\n