Collection point requires shopping destination
In my supermarket newsletter of July 11, 2013, I already predicted that the establishment of collection points for goods ordered via the internet would set the judicial pens in motion. Partly in view of the lack of clarity as to whether or not such collection points require a retail destination. Well, the District Court of East Brabant has now ruled on this on March 14, 2014. The issue concerns a collection point for bicycles ordered via the internet. These bicycles could be collected from the wholesaler and collection is only a very limited part of the total wholesale activities. Nevertheless, the court is of the opinion that the actual supply of these goods should be regarded as a retail activity. This is particularly an interesting statement because such pick-up points are popping up like mushrooms. In any case, with this ruling in hand, it can be argued that a solitarily established pick-up point is not possible without the zoning plan providing for a retail destination at that location. In the fact that payment is made in advance via the internet and the actual transaction has thus already taken place via the internet, the court sees no reason to come to a different conclusion. Obviously, what is and what is not possible at a certain location must be assessed on the basis of the current zoning plan for that location. However, the line in the case law that is emerging is clear. Those franchisees who feel competition from their own franchisor who establishes such collection points thus have a good instrument to defend themselves against, even if this competition takes place outside the exclusive area. Finally, the court confirms that the entrepreneur who faces direct competition from this may be regarded as an interested party in the context of administrative law and can therefore request enforcement of such prohibited activities. It shows once again that franchisors in the food sector should ensure that such collection points are to be regarded as an integral part of the formula.
Mr. J. Strong – Franchise attorney
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice. Do you want to respond? Mail to Sterk@ludwigvandam.nl
Other messages
Article Franchise+ – “Recipient’s liability in a franchise context, what exactly is that about?” – mr. K. Bastiaans – dated November 24, 2020
The phenomenon of hirer's liability means that a third party can be held liable for the debts of another under certain conditions.
Franchisor liable for errors made by a franchisee? – mr. AW Dolphijn – dated November 23, 2020
A franchise organization asked the court to declare that the franchisor is not liable if a franchisee has made a serious mistake with a customer.
The Real Intentions of the Parties to a Franchise Agreement – Mr. C. Damen – dated November 23, 2020
What really was the idea of the parties when they concluded a franchise agreement?
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.
Article Franchise+ – “How do I get rid of my debts: Also for franchisees and franchisors” – mr. AW Dolphijn – dated October 20, 2020
A reorganization may also be necessary for franchisees and franchisors who are in financial difficulties in order to continue to exist.
Article De Nationale Franchise Gids: “Reinvestment obligation for franchisees has limits” – dated October 13, 2020 – mr. RCWL Albers
In practice, it often happens that franchisors choose to renew their franchise formula and the appropriate image