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
Directors’ liability in the settlement of a franchise agreement
Privately, can the director of a franchisee legal entity be liable to the franchisor if the franchisee legal entity wrongfully fails to provide business to the franchisor?
Column Franchise + – mr. Th.R. Ludwig: “Towards strict liability”
The Supreme Court recently ruled in a prognosis issue.
Article in Entrance: “Rentals”
“The landlord increased the prices of the property every year, but he hasn't done this for 2 years, maybe he forgets. Can he still claim an overdue amount later?”
No valid appeal to non-compete clause in franchising
On 28 February 2017, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2017:1469, the provisional relief judge of the District Court of Gelderland ruled on whether a franchisee could be bound by a non-compete clause.
Structurally unsound revenue forecasts from the franchisor
On 15 March 2017, the District Court of Limburg ruled in eight similar judgments (including ECLI:NL:RBLIM:2017:2344) on the franchise agreements of various franchisees of the P3 franchise formula.
Franchisee obliged to cooperate with formula change?
On 24 March 2017, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2017:1860, the preliminary relief judge of the Amsterdam District Court once again considered the issue in which Intertoys wishes to convert Bart Smit's stores