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.
![238shatter](https://www.ludwigvandam.nl/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/238shatter.jpg)
Other messages
Column Franchise + – mr. Th.R. Ludwig: “Towards strict liability”
The Supreme Court recently ruled in a prognosis issue.
Article in Entrance: “Rentals”
“The landlord increased the prices of the property every year, but he hasn't done this for 2 years, maybe he forgets. Can he still claim an overdue amount later?”
No valid appeal to non-compete clause in franchising
On 28 February 2017, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2017:1469, the provisional relief judge of the District Court of Gelderland ruled on whether a franchisee could be bound by a non-compete clause.
Structurally unsound revenue forecasts from the franchisor
On 15 March 2017, the District Court of Limburg ruled in eight similar judgments (including ECLI:NL:RBLIM:2017:2344) on the franchise agreements of various franchisees of the P3 franchise formula.
Franchisee obliged to cooperate with formula change?
On 24 March 2017, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2017:1860, the preliminary relief judge of the Amsterdam District Court once again considered the issue in which Intertoys wishes to convert Bart Smit's stores
Delivery stop by franchisor not allowed
On 9 February 2017, the preliminary relief judge of the District Court of Gelderland, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2017:1372, ruled that a franchisor had not fulfilled its obligation to supply the franchisee