Continue to serve (existing) customers after termination of the franchise relationship
The wish of a franchisee who has been informed by the franchisor that the franchisor wishes to terminate the franchise agreement, that he wishes to obtain clarity within the foreseeable future by means of preliminary relief proceedings about the continuation of the franchise agreement or whether it is possible to go beyond the formula continuing to serve (existing) customers is quite conceivable. After all, the value of the company and customer base evaporates if a judgment of the court in substantive proceedings first has to be awaited.
If it is unclear whether the franchisor can terminate the franchise agreement and hold the franchisee to a post-contractual non-compete clause, initiating summary proceedings is a good option. On 27 March 2015, the preliminary relief judge of the District Court of The Hague rendered a judgment on such a matter in summary proceedings.
According to the provisional relief judge of the District Court of The Hague, it had sufficiently appeared in the present case that, according to both the franchisor and the franchisee, the cooperation between the parties had been disrupted to such an extent that the termination of their cooperation was appropriate. The preliminary relief judge took as a starting point that both parties no longer intended to implement the franchise agreement and that it (therefore) had to be assumed for the time being that the franchise agreement had been terminated.
For that reason, the preliminary relief judge rejected the franchisee’s claims for compliance with the franchise agreement and, by extension, a prohibition to have contact with the franchisee’s relations.
The franchisor argued that it could invoke the non-compete clause included in that contract because of the contract takeover of a franchise agreement previously drawn up between the franchisee and, in short, the predecessor of the franchisor. The franchisee disputed that the contract was legally valid, so that – according to the franchisee – the (successive) franchisor could not invoke the non-compete clause.
In order to answer the question whether the post-contractual non-compete clause could be invoked against the franchisee in the present case, the preliminary relief judge held that further investigation was necessary in this specific case due to the lack of clarity about the contract takeover. That investigation went beyond the scope of summary proceedings and must therefore take place in proceedings on the merits. If there had been no doubts about the legally valid contract takeover, the preliminary relief judge might well have been able to give an opinion on the post-contractual non-compete clause.
With regard to the question whether the franchisee was free to continue to serve its (existing) relations or whether the franchisor rightly invoked a contractual non-compete clause, the preliminary relief judge therefore ruled that the related claims of the franchisee and the franchisee were not in the degree required for award in interlocutory proceedings was plausible. The preliminary relief judge therefore rejected the claims of both the franchisee and the franchisor.
In this specific case, due to the investigation required in substantive proceedings in connection with the lack of clarity about the contract takeover, the franchisee did not obtain (provisional) clarity in preliminary relief proceedings that it can continue to serve (existing) customers. Under other circumstances, a judge in interlocutory proceedings might well have given an opinion on the post-contractual non-compete clause.
If the (former) franchisee in the present case were to choose to continue to serve customers, he would run the risk of forfeiting a fine later in the event that the court were to determine in proceedings on the merits that the franchisor was justified in invoking the post-contractual non-compete clause. The (former) franchisee of the issue in question will only obtain clarity about whether or not the post-contractual non-compete clause has been violated, or as soon as the parties reach an amicable settlement when the court renders a judgment in proceedings on the merits.
Mr. J. van de Peppel – franchise lawyer
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice. Do you want to respond? Go to vandepeppel@ludwigvandam.nl
Other messages
Bankrupt because the franchisor refused to sell the franchise company – dated January 28, 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The District Court of The Hague has dealt with a request from a franchisor to declare a franchisee bankrupt.
Prescribed shop fitting – dated January 28, 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Midden-Nederland District Court has ruled on whether a franchisee is obliged to carry the shop fittings prescribed by the franchisor.
Ludwig & Van Dam attorneys summon Sandd and PostNL on behalf of the Sandd franchisees – dated 9 January 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Association of Franchisees of Sandd (VFS) has today summoned Sandd and PostNL before the court in Arnhem. The VFS believes that Sandd and PostNL are letting the franchisees down hard.
Article The National Franchise Guide: “Why joint and several liability, for example, next to private?” – dated 7 January 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
Franchisees are often asked to co-sign the franchise agreement in addition to their franchise, for example. Sometimes franchisees refuse to do so and the franchise agreement is not signed.
Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten assists Sandd franchisees: Franchisees Sandd challenge postal monopoly in court – dated 12 November 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Association of Franchisees of Sandd (VFS) is challenging the decision of State Secretary Mona Keijzer to approve the postal merger between PostNL and Sandd before the court in Rotterdam.
Franchisee trapped by non-compete clause? – dated October 21, 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
The District Court of East Brabant has ruled that a franchisee was still bound by the non-competition clause in the event of premature termination of the franchise agreement.