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
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