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
Which court for a rental and franchise agreement?
Which court is competent to rule on a related rental and franchise agreement?
Interview Franchise+ – mrs. J. Sterk and AW Dolphijn – “Reversal burden of proof in forecasts honored by court”
The new Acquisition Fraud Act indeed appears to be relevant for the franchise industry, according to this article from Franchise+.
Franchisor convicted under the Acquisition Fraud Act
For the first time, a court has ruled, with reference to the Acquisition Fraud Act, that if a franchisee claims that the franchisor has presented an unsatisfactory prognosis
Agreements Related to the Franchise Agreement
On 31 October 2017, the Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal issued similar judgments for nineteen franchisees (ECLI:NL:GHARL:2017:9453 through ECLI:NL:GHARL:2017:9472).
Column Franchise+ – mr. J. Sterk – “Franchisee does body check better than franchise check”
A gym embarks on a franchise concept that offers “Body Checks” and discounts to (potential) members in collaboration with health insurers.
Seminar Mrs. J. Sterk and M. Munnik – Thursday, November 2, 2017: “Important legal developments for franchisors”
Attorneys Jeroen Sterk and Maaike Munnik of Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten will update you on the status of and developments surrounding the Dutch Franchise Code and the Acquisition Fraude Act.