Can a franchisee leave sales channels unused?
Franchise formulas are now generally well equipped with an online sales channel. The expansion with an online sales channel sometimes caused friction with the franchisee. However, developments continue. What if a franchisee of a formula, who traditionally worked with physical stores, only operates the formula through the online sales channel?
In that context, the judgment of the preliminary relief judge of the District Court of Amsterdam of 4 November 2015, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2015:8040 (IBG/Accell), is important.
In addition to physical stores, the franchisee also operated a web shop (underfietsenwinkel.nl). After a year, the dealer sells the stores and continues its web shop. This is not what the franchisor had in mind. It focused on an omni channel formula. The franchisor requires that the necessary optimal service can be offered to customers within the framework of the franchise formula, and that would really only be possible with a physical store as well.
The franchisor wished to terminate the cooperation immediately on the grounds of non-performance, or at least terminate the cooperation after the agreed notice period had expired. The court ruled that there was no breach of contract, because it had not been explicitly agreed that a physical store should be present. It was agreed that the franchisee would provide the necessary service. The franchisee does that too, but doesn’t do it from a store. This is because service is provided at home. Immediate termination of the cooperation was therefore rejected. According to the court, the franchisor was authorized to terminate the cooperation with the franchisee, subject to the agreed notice period.
To avoid ambiguity and disputes, the dealer or franchise agreements should not only contain agreements on the expansion of sales channels, but also on the limitation of sales channels.
mr. AW Dolphijn – Franchise lawyer
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice.
Do you want to respond? Go to dolphijn@ludwigvandam.nl
Other messages
Ludwig & Van Dam attorneys summon Sandd and PostNL on behalf of the Sandd franchisees – dated 9 January 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Association of Franchisees of Sandd (VFS) has today summoned Sandd and PostNL before the court in Arnhem. The VFS believes that Sandd and PostNL are letting the franchisees down hard.
Article The National Franchise Guide: “Why joint and several liability, for example, next to private?” – dated 7 January 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
Franchisees are often asked to co-sign the franchise agreement in addition to their franchise, for example. Sometimes franchisees refuse to do so and the franchise agreement is not signed.
Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten assists Sandd franchisees: Franchisees Sandd challenge postal monopoly in court – dated 12 November 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Association of Franchisees of Sandd (VFS) is challenging the decision of State Secretary Mona Keijzer to approve the postal merger between PostNL and Sandd before the court in Rotterdam.
Franchisee trapped by non-compete clause? – dated October 21, 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
The District Court of East Brabant has ruled that a franchisee was still bound by the non-competition clause in the event of premature termination of the franchise agreement.
Supermarket letter – 26
Supermarket Newsletter No. 26
Link franchise agreement and rental agreement uncertain? – dated October 14, 2019 – mr K. Bastiaans
It is no exception within a franchise relationship that the parties agree that the franchise agreement and the rental agreement are inextricably linked.