Continuation of operation, despite substantial backlog of franchise fee?

By Published On: 16-06-2014Categories: Statements & current affairs

Can the franchisee continue to operate despite a significant franchise fee payment arrears? On 29 April 2014, the District Court of Rotterdam (ECLI:NL:RBROT:2014:4701) ruled on this question in preliminary relief proceedings.

As a franchisor, IPIC rents out an IMO car wash to a franchisee for operation. The franchisee has left more than a ton of franchise fee due unpaid. After notice of default, IPIC dissolves the franchise agreement extrajudicially, replaces the locks to the car wash and renders the car wash unusable for the franchisee.

The franchisee claims in preliminary relief proceedings to have the car wash freely available again. As a counterclaim, the franchisor claims – inter alia – insofar as required, to oblige the franchisee to vacate the leased property and to keep it vacated.

The preliminary relief judge rules that, now that the franchise agreement can (partly) be qualified as the lease of business space, the franchisor cannot dissolve the lease agreement extrajudicially. Only the court can dissolve a commercial space lease (Article 7:231 paragraph 1 DCC). The court awards the claim to make the car wash available again to the franchisee. In that context, the franchisor’s counterclaim for eviction of the leased property is also rejected.

The legal qualification of a franchise agreement sometimes remains difficult if there is also the use of immovable property. If the use of the immovable property can be qualified as a business space and there is some form of compensation for this, then the legal protection rules for the benefit of the tenant of a business space will very quickly prevail. An important protective rule is that the tenant cannot prematurely terminate the lease for a business space without the court or without the cooperation of the tenant. A preliminary legal analysis of the franchise agreement and the relevant circumstances can help to prevent uncertainties.


Mr AW Dolphijn – Franchise lawyer

 Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys,franchise legal advice. Do you want to respond? Mail to dolphijn@ludwigvandam.nl 

Other messages

Sale of a franchise company due to a non-competition clause: False construction or not?

Franchisees who are unwilling or unable to continue with the franchise company experience whether or not the non-competition clause is valid or not.

Prohibited Franchise Agreements: Conduct of Franchisees Among Others

Forms of franchising that do not involve a vertical relationship between the franchisor on the one hand and the franchisees on the other may be prohibited.

A new franchisor against will and thanks

Mergers between franchise organizations are no longer an exception. Multivlaai/Limburgia, DA/DIO, Emté/Jumbo are recent examples of this.

Supreme Court: Code of Honor regarding franchising has no legal effect – dated September 25, 2018 – mr. AW Dolphin

Supreme Court: Code of honor on franchising has no legal force

By Alex Dolphijn|25-09-2018|Categories: Dispute settlement, Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , |

Franchisor wrongly hinders internet sales by franchisee – dated September 19, 2018 – mr. AW Dolphin

Franchisor wrongly hinders internet sales by franchisee

Go to Top