Contractual dissolution requirements not observed? No legal dissolution of the franchise agreement – dated July 23, 2020 – mr. C. Damen
Can a franchisor terminate the franchise agreement if it has failed to comply with its own contractual requirements? The Court of First Instance recently ruled that there was no legally valid dissolution of the franchise agreement as a result of this.
After a successful period of cooperation between franchisor and franchisee, cracks have appeared in the relationship between the parties. The franchisee plans to take over a business that the franchisor believes violates a contractually agreed non-competition clause. The franchisor then terminates the franchise agreement and terminates the formula with respect to the franchisee. Subsequently, the franchisee terminates the franchise agreement because the franchisor allegedly failed. Both parties state that they have dissolved the franchise agreement on good grounds and are claiming damages from each other. Who is now right in court and why?
The judge does not follow the vision of the franchisor. In complying with the franchise agreement, the franchisor itself would have failed to comply with a number of contractual agreements. These agreements relate to the continuation of the form of cooperation, the development of the formula and the promotion of joint growth. In the present case, the franchise agreement contains an obligation for the franchisor
to inform the franchisee by registered letter of the measures to be taken to bring the operation back into line with the franchise agreement. However, the court is of the opinion that the franchisor wrongly failed to observe this provision when dissolving the franchise agreement. Because the franchisor has not observed its own rules on dissolution, the dissolution is invalid and the franchisor wrongly stopped complying with the franchise agreement.
The franchisor is ordered to pay compensation to the franchisee as a result of the non-legally valid extrajudicial dissolution of the franchise agreement.
It strongly depends on the circumstances whether and how a franchise agreement can be legally dissolved and what requirements apply. In this ruling, however, it has been confirmed once again that what the parties have agreed with each other (in the agreement) is leading in any case.
mr. C. Damen – franchise lawyer
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice.
Do you want to respond? Go to damen@ludwigvandam.nl
Other messages
Amsterdam Court of Appeal restricts franchisor’s appeal to non-competition – dated July 6, 2020 – mr. T. Meijer
On 30 June 20202, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal ruled that a franchisor is not entitled to an (unlimited) appeal to a contractual non-competition clause.
Vacancy lawyer-employee
Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten is a law firm that specializes entirely in franchise and other partnerships and is the market leader of its kind in the Netherlands.
Qualitaria franchisee put in his shirt – dated July 2, 2020 – mr. JAJ Devilee
The District Court of Zeeland-West-Brabant has rendered a judgment in legal proceedings initiated by a Qualitaria franchisee.
Supermarket newsletter -28-
Supermarket newsletter -28-
Article Franchise+ – “Immediate information obligations of franchisors upon operation of the Franchise Act” – mr. AW Dolphijn – dated June 25, 2020
As soon as the Franchise Act enters into force, this will have an immediate effect on franchise agreements that already exist. The question is whether the information flows are set up optimally from a legal point of view.
Senate will adopt Franchise Act – dated 24 June 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The House of Representatives had unanimously adopted the proposal to introduce the Franchise Act on 16 June 2020