Article The National Franchise Guide – “Corona discount on rent” – dated June 2, 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
If a rental property is obliged to be closed due to corona, this may be the case
are entitled to a rent reduction, according to the court
North Netherlands.
On 27 May 2020, the District Court of the Northern Netherlands ruled that the tenant
rightly stated that closure of the leased property as a result of a
government measure may be a defect in the rented property. The tenant can
after all, not use what he rented. The law stipulates that
a defect that the tenant can in principle claim (with retroactive effect).
make a rent reduction.
The matter in question related to a situation where InBev was a tenant of
a real estate investor, and InBev sublet to a hospitality entrepreneur.
Such constructions of hiring in and out are also included
franchising relationships. InBev had offered two-thirds
of the rent for April and May, after which the catering entrepreneur
(the subtenant) the remainder of one third of these months
pay to the real estate investor. The real estate investor did not want this and
demanded full and timely rent payment in interlocutory proceedings. The court
considers that InBev rightly states that closure of the leased property is a consequence
of a government measure if a defect in the rented property is visible. Mead
given the unforeseeable circumstances, is entitled to
rent reduction. The claim for payment of the
full rent is therefore rejected. Depending on the specific
circumstances and the content of the rental agreements are also possible
Of course, other outcomes are conceivable.
Both the franchisor and the franchisee do well together
to take action against the main lessor, such as the brewery and
hospitality entrepreneur also successfully did so in this matter. Together
can they enter into consultation with the main lessor for a reasonable
to find a solution.
mr. AW Dolphijn – franchise lawyer
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice. Want
do you want to respond? Go to dolphijn@ludwigvandam.nl
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