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
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.
Goodwill at end of franchise agreement
In a case before the Amsterdam Court of Appeal on 26 September 2017, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:3900 (Seal & Go), a franchisee claimed compensation for goodwill (ex Article 7:308 of the Dutch Civil Code) after the
Article in Entrance: “Resignation”
Fire an employee who is not performing well? The subdistrict court is strict. If you, as an employer, cannot demonstrate that you have done everything yourself to make the person function better, it will be
Cost price that is too high as a hidden franchise fee
An interlocutory judgment of the District Court of The Hague dated 30 August 2017, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2017:10597 (Happy Nurse) shows that the court has considered the question whether the