Bonuses that are not in the franchise agreement
Bonuses that are not in the franchise agreement
The Court of Appeal in The Hague 31 March 2015
(ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2015:1139) a dispute was submitted between a franchisee and franchisor regarding the settlement after termination of the franchise agreement with regard to bonuses.
The franchisor and the franchisee entered into a settlement agreement to terminate the franchise agreement. However, it has been determined that the parties are still in dispute about, among other things, bonuses paid to the franchisee. Among other things, that dispute was submitted to the court, of which the present dispute concerns the judgment on appeal.
It concerned the following: The franchisor received bonuses from providers, in particular with regard to turnovers made by the franchisee. The franchisee states that it is entitled to those bonuses and therefore that these bonuses must be paid to it.
The Court of Appeal ruled that the right to the aforementioned bonuses was not explicitly stipulated in the franchise agreement. However, the franchise agreement does provide that the franchisor may set off against such bonuses what the franchisee owes the franchisor under the franchise agreements. According to the Court of Appeal, that provision therefore assumes that there are bonuses that are received by the franchisor but accrue to the franchisee. The franchise agreement should be interpreted as meaning, or at least supplemented by application of Section 6:248 of the Dutch Civil Code, that the bonuses in question granted and received by the providers to the franchisor should be paid to the franchisee.
This judgment once again shows the need for a careful and well-thought-out franchise agreement. If and insofar as the franchisor had wanted to exclude that the franchisee would have any right to a bonus from a provider accruing to the franchisor, it would have done well to stipulate this explicitly.
Mr AW Dolphijn – Franchise lawyer
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice. Do you want to respond? Mail to dolphijn@ludwigvandam.nl
Other messages
Franchisee circumvents non-competition clause through partner – mr. RCWL Albers – dated February 24, 2022
In a recent case, a graphics services franchisor attempted to ...
Article De Nationale Franchise Gids: “Changing the franchise formula is possible” – mr. T. Meijer – dated February 8, 2022
Many franchise formulas are constantly evolving. The adage 'to stand ...
Corona justifies halving the franchise fee – mr. RCWL Albers – dated February 1, 2022
In a recent ruling by the Amsterdam Court of Appeal, ...
Can a franchisor increase the interim franchise fee and change the formula? – mr. AW Dolphijn – dated January 21, 2022
A franchisor must be able to adjust the franchise formula ...
Franchise agreement with free PLUS entrepreneur canceled – mr. AW Dolphijn – dated January 19, 2022
It is not often that a supermarket organization terminates an ...
Article De Nationale Franchise Gids: “Franchisee exclusively bound by a non-compete clause as a private company” – mr. M. Munnik – dated January 11, 2022
On December 22, 2021, the Rotterdam District Court issued an ...