Article Franchise+ – Franchisees enjoy the same protection as employees and commercial agents with regard to a non-competition clause – dated 7 May 2020 – mr. RCWL Albers
It happens quite often that, especially by franchisees, too
lightly thought about the validity of a post-contractual
non-competition clause. It is thought that franchisors are not here
without further ado, certainly not when the franchisee
terminated the franchise agreement. Recently, however, it is again
confirmed that the mere dissolution of the agreement has no consequences
for the validity of a non-competition clause. The judge makes one
interesting comparison with employees and commercial agents.
In a recent case, the court in Maastricht considered the
validity of a post-contractual non-compete clause in a
distribution agreement. The dealer in question had his agreement
dissolved and stated that, among other things, the non-competition clause was no longer applicable
would be valid. The judge ruled otherwise.
The court has expressly considered that a distributor has no appeal
can do on compliance with a post-contractual non-compete clause
if the distributor can be seriously blamed
regarding the termination. The court specifically refers to the
legal protections that commercial agents or employees have in this regard
and states that this legislation can be applied by analogy to
the distribution agreement not regulated by law. Next came the
court in this matter concluded that the distributor is not serious
could be blamed for the termination. The single
dissolution, which incidentally did not last in this case, is therefore, according to the
court insufficient to enforce the post-contractual non-competition clause
to be invalid, for that the heavier standard of the
serious accusation.
In my view, this consideration also applies to franchise agreements
and thus becomes the permanent line in case law in the field of
non-competition clauses in franchise agreements confirmed and clarified.
The validity test with regard to non-competition clauses in
franchise agreements in most cases comes down to one
court’s consideration of interests. In this consideration, whether the
franchisor can be blamed for the franchise agreement
finished. The judge in Maastricht makes that clear once again
(just as with employers or principals in agency relationships).
must be due to serious misconduct on the part of the franchisor.
The threshold for this is therefore high.
This emphatic analogy with employment contracts and
agency agreements is new, but the underlying benchmark
endorses a consistent line in case law for years
non-competition clauses. Finally, I note that the culpability
with regard to the termination, this concerns only one of the many grounds
can be laid on the basis of setting aside a
non-competition clause. The jurisprudence is very casuistic and it is therefore
It is advisable to get good advice about the chances of success.
Click here for the published article.
mr. RCWL Albers – Franchise Attorney
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice. Want
you respond?
Go to albers@ludwigvandam.nl
Other messages
Article Franchise+ – “Immediate information obligations of franchisors upon operation of the Franchise Act” – mr. AW Dolphijn – dated June 25, 2020
As soon as the Franchise Act enters into force, this will have an immediate effect on franchise agreements that already exist. The question is whether the information flows are set up optimally from a legal point of view.
Senate will adopt Franchise Act – dated 24 June 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The House of Representatives had unanimously adopted the proposal to introduce the Franchise Act on 16 June 2020
Franchise Act passed by the House of Representatives – dated 16 June 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Franchise Act was adopted by the House of Representatives on 16 June 2020.
Sandd franchisees find satisfaction in nullifying Sandd and PostNL merger – dated 12 June 2020
The franchisees of mail delivery company Sandd went to court in November, assisted by Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten. Court of Rotterdam rules on takeover by PostNL.
Plenary debate dated June 9, 2020 in the Lower House of the Franchise Act – dated June 10, 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
On 9 June 2020, the legislative proposal for the Franchise Act was discussed in plenary in the House of Representatives. An amendment and a motion have been tabled.
Franchising is “a bottleneck in tackling healthcare fraud” – dated 10 June 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
According to the various supervisory authorities in the healthcare sector, franchise constructions can be seen as a non-transparent business construction in which the supervision of professional and