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
Bankrupt because the franchisor refused to sell the franchise company – dated January 28, 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The District Court of The Hague has dealt with a request from a franchisor to declare a franchisee bankrupt.
Prescribed shop fitting – dated January 28, 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Midden-Nederland District Court has ruled on whether a franchisee is obliged to carry the shop fittings prescribed by the franchisor.
Ludwig & Van Dam attorneys summon Sandd and PostNL on behalf of the Sandd franchisees – dated 9 January 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Association of Franchisees of Sandd (VFS) has today summoned Sandd and PostNL before the court in Arnhem. The VFS believes that Sandd and PostNL are letting the franchisees down hard.
Article The National Franchise Guide: “Why joint and several liability, for example, next to private?” – dated 7 January 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
Franchisees are often asked to co-sign the franchise agreement in addition to their franchise, for example. Sometimes franchisees refuse to do so and the franchise agreement is not signed.
Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten assists Sandd franchisees: Franchisees Sandd challenge postal monopoly in court – dated 12 November 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Association of Franchisees of Sandd (VFS) is challenging the decision of State Secretary Mona Keijzer to approve the postal merger between PostNL and Sandd before the court in Rotterdam.
Franchisee trapped by non-compete clause? – dated October 21, 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
The District Court of East Brabant has ruled that a franchisee was still bound by the non-competition clause in the event of premature termination of the franchise agreement.