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
Forecasts at startup franchise formula
The Amsterdam Court of Appeal ruled on 14 February 2017, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:455 (Tot Straks/franchisee) on the question whether the franchisor had provided an unsatisfactory prognosis and whether the
Mandatory transfer of franchise business to franchisor?
On January 23, 2017, the District Court of Amsterdam, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2017:412 (CoffeeCompany/Dam Spirit BV) rendered a judgment on the question whether a franchisee upon termination of the cooperation
Transfer customer data to franchisor
In its judgment of 10 January 2017, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:68 (OnlineAccountants.nl), the Amsterdam Court ruled, among other things, on the question of how customer data should be transferred.
Franchise Closing Sale – Who Gets the Sale Proceeds?
The judgment of the District Court of the Northern Netherlands dated 12 October 2016, ECLI:NL:RBNNE:2016:5061 (Administrator/Expert Group and Rabobank), focused on the question whether the franchisor, together with the bank,
Column Franchise+ – mr. Th.R. Ludwig: “Judge: franchisor’s duty of care comparable to that of a bank”
Various judgments in 2016 made it clear how high the standard of care for a franchisor towards its franchisees is.
Use of the internet and social media: court expands options for franchisees
In principle, the franchisee may not be prohibited from having its own website in order to also or even exclusively sell its products or services via the Internet.