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
Infringement of exclusive service area by franchisor in connection with formula change dated February 27, 2017
On 30 January 2017, the provisional relief judge of the District Court of Noord-Holland, ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2017:688 (Intertoys/franchisee), was asked how to deal with the
Forecasts at startup franchise formula
The Amsterdam Court of Appeal ruled on 14 February 2017, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:455 (Tot Straks/franchisee) on the question whether the franchisor had provided an unsatisfactory prognosis and whether the
Mandatory transfer of franchise business to franchisor?
On January 23, 2017, the District Court of Amsterdam, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2017:412 (CoffeeCompany/Dam Spirit BV) rendered a judgment on the question whether a franchisee upon termination of the cooperation
Transfer customer data to franchisor
In its judgment of 10 January 2017, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:68 (OnlineAccountants.nl), the Amsterdam Court ruled, among other things, on the question of how customer data should be transferred.
Franchise Closing Sale – Who Gets the Sale Proceeds?
The judgment of the District Court of the Northern Netherlands dated 12 October 2016, ECLI:NL:RBNNE:2016:5061 (Administrator/Expert Group and Rabobank), focused on the question whether the franchisor, together with the bank,
Column Franchise+ – mr. Th.R. Ludwig: “Judge: franchisor’s duty of care comparable to that of a bank”
Various judgments in 2016 made it clear how high the standard of care for a franchisor towards its franchisees is.