Circumventing the prohibition of competition in the franchise agreement – mr. AW Dolphijn – dated November 10, 2020
A non-competition clause in a franchise agreement is often experienced as objectionable by franchisees, especially if the non-competition clause also applies after the franchise agreement has expired. The Franchise Act does impose some restrictions on this prohibition, but such a prohibition is still possible. Sometimes attempts are made to circumvent the prohibition of competition. For example, see that commented-out statement here: https://bit.ly/3piUbyK
In a remarkable case, the preliminary relief judge ruled on October 22, 2020 (ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2020:5763) that a former franchisee had not violated the non-competition clause, even though the former franchisee leased the store to a friend who continued similar activities there.
The franchise agreement provided, among other things, the following:
In view of the protection of (the…) Formula, for a period of two years after termination of this Agreement, the Franchise will not, directly or indirectly, be self-employed or employed or in the form of any company or legal form, work or are otherwise involved, in any form whatsoever, in activities similar to (the…) Formula or the activities performed by the Franchisor under this Agreement.
The preliminary relief judge ruled that the former franchisee was actually not (any longer) able to close the shop and had no control over the new company. There was therefore no violation of the prohibition of competition, according to the court. There was therefore no question of evading the prohibition of competition. One may wonder whether involvement in the competitive activities, as referred to in the post-non-compete clause, does not exist if there is (sub)leasing to a third party that continues competing activities at the same location. Again and again, a concrete situation will have to be assessed on its specific merits in order to determine whether there has been a violation of the prohibition of competition.
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
Contractual dissolution requirements not observed? No legal dissolution of the franchise agreement – dated July 23, 2020 – mr. C. Damen
Can a franchisor terminate the franchise agreement if it has failed to comply with its own contractual requirements?
Legal ban on unilaterally changing opening hours by the franchisor – July 13, 2020 – mr. J. Strong
Legislative proposal of the State Secretary which, in short, means that the shopkeeper may not be bound by unilateral changes to the opening hours during the term of the agreement.
No right to extension of franchise agreement – July 6, 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
Can a franchisor refuse to renew the franchise agreement if the franchisee does not agree to amended terms of a new franchise agreement?
Amsterdam Court of Appeal restricts franchisor’s appeal to non-competition – dated July 6, 2020 – mr. T. Meijer
On 30 June 20202, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal ruled that a franchisor is not entitled to an (unlimited) appeal to a contractual non-competition clause.
Vacancy lawyer-employee
Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten is a law firm that specializes entirely in franchise and other partnerships and is the market leader of its kind in the Netherlands.
Qualitaria franchisee put in his shirt – dated July 2, 2020 – mr. JAJ Devilee
The District Court of Zeeland-West-Brabant has rendered a judgment in legal proceedings initiated by a Qualitaria franchisee.