Agreed early termination of the franchise agreement
A franchise agreement is usually concluded for a specific period of time. Early termination is possible if both the franchisor and the franchisee reach an agreement. In the matter that the District Court of Rotterdam assessed on 26 July 2023, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2023:7014, the question was whether there was an agreement to terminate the franchise agreement prematurely.
A franchisee prematurely stopped the execution of the franchise agreement because he believed that an agreement had been reached with the franchisor.
According to the franchisor, it was admittedly investigated with the franchisee whether agreement could be reached on the conditions under which the franchise agreement could be terminated prematurely. The parties had also drawn up a settlement agreement for this purpose. However, according to the franchisor, the parties could not agree on the conditions. There was therefore never a signed settlement agreement. The franchisor therefore claimed compensation for damage in respect of the period in which the franchise agreement should have been fulfilled.
However, the court is of the opinion that a signed settlement agreement is not necessary to reach early termination. According to the court, an e-mail from the franchisor to the franchisee shows that the franchisor had agreed to the early termination. The e-mail states: “As agreed yesterday afternoon, we will jointly ensure that we end the collaboration as of October 1.”. The court sees no reason to assume that the termination was dependent on further conditions to be set by the franchisor regarding the precise settlement. The franchisor’s claim for damages was therefore rejected by the court.
When negotiating the premature termination of the franchise agreement, the parties would do well to first record in writing when an agreement has been reached. This is possible, for example, by first agreeing that there is only an agreement if both parties have signed.
Ludwig & Van Dam lawyers, franchise legal advice.
Do you want to respond? Then email to dolphijn@ludwigvandam.nl
Other messages
Judge anticipates Franchise Act: no mandatory formula change (without threshold value)
The District Court of Amsterdam ruled that a Blokker franchisee is not obliged to renovate the store in accordance with the latest formula principles, as instructed by Blokker.
Interview Mr. J. Sterk and mr. C. Rutten in Franchise+: “Call to the automotive sector: prepare yourself well for the new Franchise Act” dated October 2, 2020
The new Franchise Act has a broad effect, also in the automotive sector. But are people aware of it enough?
Article The National Franchise Guide – “Corona discount of 50% on the rent” – mr. AW Dolphijn – dated September 15, 2020
Disappointing turnover due to the corona crisis may mean that the rent is halved, even if the rent is partly turnover-related.
Article Franchise+ – “Franchisor uses “derivative formula” (without his knowledge)” – mr. AW Dolphijn – dated September 9, 2020
Many franchisors will not be aware of the fact that they use a "derived formula" as referred to in the Franchise Act.
Article Franchise+ – “Obligations and rights of the starting franchisee” – mr. AW Dolphijn – dd
What should you pay attention to as a starting franchisee, what are your obligations and what are your rights when concluding the franchise agreement?
Article Mr. C. Damen – Three conditions for the right to customer compensation for the agent upon termination of the agency agreement – dated August 26, 2020
In the agency relationship between an agent and a client (the principal), the parties record their cooperation agreements in an agency agreement. When the principal enters into the agency agreement