Continuation of operation, despite substantial backlog of franchise fee?
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
Acquisition fraud vs. error in franchise forecasting
Who has to prove that the franchisor's forecast is unsound? In principle, this is the franchisee. If the franchisee invokes the Acquisition Fraud Act, it may be that
Obligation to sell back at the end of the franchise agreement
Franchise agreements sometimes provide that the franchisee is required to sell back purchased assets at the end of the franchise agreement.
Supermarket letter – 20
Uncertain legal position of Emté franchisees
Position of franchisees in franchisor restructuring
Franchisees must be adequately and generously informed in advance by the franchisor about the content and consequences of (further) agreements...
Interview Franchise+ – mrs. J. Sterk and AW Dolphijn – “Reversal of burden of proof in forecasts approved by court” – February 2018
The new Acquisition Fraud Act indeed appears to be relevant for the franchise industry, according to this article from Franchise+. Alex Dolphijn of Ludwig & Van Dam assists a franchisee in a
Article Franchise & Law No. 7 – Franchise agreement as general terms and conditions
Uniformity of the franchise formula and (therefore also) uniformity of the agreements with the franchisees will often be of great importance to the franchisor.