Article De Nationale Franchisegids: “The interim termination of the franchise agreement” – August 12, 2019 – mr. JAJ Devilee
A franchise agreement can end prematurely in many ways. For example, parties can decide by mutual consent to part ways and jointly make further agreements about this. Often, however, it is one of the parties that is not at all waiting for an interim farewell. In such a case may, for example, include dissolution or cancellation of the franchising agreement. In the event of (extrajudicial) dissolution of the franchise agreement usually becomes the franchise agreement effective immediately terminated and upon termination of the franchise agreement, a certain notice period must be observed.
However, the court begins in its judgment with it assessing the termination of the franchise agreement. The court has first contemplated that there is no termination by mutual consent occurred, as the parties have not reached agreement on the (core) conditions on which the collaboration would be terminated. In the context of the court considers that the extrajudicial dissolution does not exist of such serious failure on the part of the franchisee that would justify dissolution of the franchise agreement. Therefore considering the court that the franchise agreement has not been legally dissolved by the franchisor. With regard to the termination, the court considers that there is has been validly canceled by the franchisor and that the contractual notice period expires. This entails that the franchisor is the must enable the franchisee until June 1, 2019 to make the agreed to perform work during the period that the notice period is still valid continues. This means that the franchisor does not (yet) have access to should have denied the digital work system. Basically, the franchisor gets the lid on the nose, because in fact he acted too early as if the cooperation had already ended.
There are several roads that lead to Rome, but be aware always make sure you are on the right route. If you would like advice on this, please feel free to contact us.
Click here for the published article.
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.