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
The benchmark for franchise forecasts – dated 29 May 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
On 19 March 2019, the Den Bosch Court of Appeal, ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2019:1037, listed the case law of the Supreme Court on prognosis in franchising.
Franchise arbitration: too high a threshold? – mr. M. Munnik
When entering into an agreement, it is possible for the parties - contrary to the law - to designate a competent court. This also applies to the franchise agreement. Of this possibility
Franchise appeal for error due to incorrect forecasts and lack of support rejected – dated April 25, 2019 – mr. K. Bastian
The Court of Appeal of 's-Hertogenbosch ruled (ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2019:697) on the question whether the mere fact that forecasts did not materialize justifies the conclusion that the franchisee has been shortchanged...
Article De Nationale Franchise Gids: “Increasing protection against recruiting franchisees” – dated 2 April 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
It is becoming increasingly apparent that recruited franchisees can be protected on the basis of the Acquisition Fraud Act.
The Franchise Association and Franchise Binding – Contracting 2019, No. 1
A contribution on common provisions in franchise agreements that require a franchisee to be a member of a franchisee's association.
Deception in recruiting a franchisee?
A ruling on whether the franchisor had made a misrepresentation when recruiting a franchisee.