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
Column Franchise+ – 50 percent more franchise lawsuits
The 2018 Legal Franchise Statistics published by Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten shows that there has been a 50% increase in the number of judgments in court cases rendered in 2017 compared to
A closer look at the intention to introduce franchising legislation
On May 23rd, State Secretary Mona Keijzer informed the House of Representatives about the imminent franchise legislation. The National Franchise Guide previously published this article.
Consumer Protection Applies to Franchisee
The consumer enjoys broad protection on the basis of the Civil Code.
Update Franchise Law
On 23 May 2018, the government indicated that it would prepare a legal regulation that creates a framework for four sub-areas of cooperation between franchisors and franchisees that are crucial
On the edge of a franchisee’s exclusive territory
The Court of Appeal of Arnhem-Leeuwarden ruled on 15 May 2018, ECLI:NL:GHARL:2018:4395, on the question whether a franchisor has a branch just over the edge of the exclusively granted protection area.
Can a franchisee cohabit with a competing entrepreneur?
Can a franchisee violate a non-compete clause by cohabiting with someone who runs a competing business? On January 12, 2018, the District Court of Central Netherlands ruled