Advantage in the event of an illegal supply stop
A dispute was submitted to the Supreme Court in which a franchisor had imposed a delivery stop on a franchisee.
It is not in dispute that the franchisee is entitled to compensation for damage if the franchisor unjustly stopped supply. Does this right to compensation also apply if the franchisee has nevertheless purchased the same goods from another supplier?
– The court ordered the franchisor to pay substantial damages as a result of the unlawful stoppage of supply. The Amsterdam Court of Appeal of 20 January 2015, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2015:137 ruled that there was no such damage because the franchisee had concluded a replacement agreement on the basis of which the same goods were purchased by the franchisee. The franchisee disagreed and lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court.
In its judgment HR 23 September 2016, ECLI:NL:HR:2016:2180 (Luxembourg/Habitat), it is ruled that the question is of a factual nature and not a legal complaint. AG Wissink had nevertheless written an interesting conclusion.
In the opinion of AG Wissink dated 17 June 2016, ECLI:NL:PHR:2016:903, it is pointed out that the Court of Appeal was right to take advantage of the replacement agreement, because the replacement agreement is the actual situation in which the franchisee after the failure of the franchisor has come to be. The Supreme Court previously ruled that benefit can only be attributed if the damage and the benefit arise from “the same event”. See HR 10 July 2009, ECLI:NL:HR:2009:BI3402 (Vos/TSN) and HR 29 April 2011, ECLI:NL:HR:2011:BP4012 (Van der Heijden/Dexia).
Three weeks after this conclusion by AG Wissink, in a completely different case, the Supreme Court ruled that benefit allocation is only possible if the benefit accrued because the other party had violated standards, and this is reasonable. See HR 8 July 2016, ECLI:NL:HR:2016:1483 (ABB/TenneT). That judgment seems to be in line with the conclusion of the AG of 17 June 2016.
The argument that the franchisor gets away with its default, thanks to the replacement agreement concluded through the efforts of the franchisee, therefore fails.
mr. AW Dolphijn – Franchise lawyer
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice.
Do you want to respond? Go to dolphijn@ludwigvandam.nl
Other messages
Franchisor liable for forecasts from third parties – dated March 6, 2019 – mr. M. Munnik
According to settled case law, a franchisor acts unlawfully towards its franchisee when a franchisor independently conducts research in a careless manner and as a result...
The (hard) franchise agreement and duty of care qualified – WPNR 7226 (2019)
The government intends to include a legal regulation on franchising in the Civil Code to protect the weak position of the franchisee.
The municipality must allow temporary Albert Heijn
On 7 February 2019, the District Court of Noord-Holland ruled on whether the municipality should allow a temporary Albert Heijn
Franchisors may no longer impose changes to store hours – February 12, 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
At the end of 2018, a draft of the “Freedom of Choice for Retailers (Opening Hours) Act” was presented.
When does a franchisor go too far when recruiting franchisees?
The judgment of the Court of Appeal of Arnhem-Leeuwarden on 5 February 2019 dealt with whether the franchisor had acted impermissibly when recruiting the franchisees.
Advisory Board on Regulatory Pressure (ATR) advises State Secretary Keijzer about the Franchise Act
In short, it is first advised to actively inform franchisors and franchisees about this amendment to the law.