Corona justifies halving the franchise fee – mr. RCWL Albers – dated February 1, 2022
In a recent ruling by the Amsterdam Court of Appeal, the court reversed a cessation of the franchisee’s exploitation ordered by a court in preliminary relief proceedings.
The court considered it justified by an appeal to unforeseen circumstances that the franchisee had paid less franchise fee during lockdowns. A legal basis that has been frequently used in recent years by tenants to (successfully) negotiate rent discounts.
Although an appeal to unforeseen circumstances (Section 6:258 of the Dutch Civil Code) is not exclusively reserved for parties to a lease, litigation has mainly taken place in the context of lease agreements in recent years.
In line with this jurisprudence, the court considers in this ruling on the franchise agreement that:
“The possibility of the outbreak of a crisis of this magnitude was not foreseen or (apparently) intended by the parties in the franchise agreement. It is incorrect to allow the consequences of this to be unilaterally for the account and risk of Amstel (the franchisee), a division of that risk (on a 50/50 basis) for the months in which the Julianaplein location had to be closed in whole or in part due to corona measures imposed by the government is more obvious.”[1]
This reasoning of the court is understandable in itself, but it is not clear from the ruling how this relates to the fact that the franchise fee depends on turnover. In this case, the franchise fee was 4% of turnover. A logical consequence of (partial) lockdowns is of course that turnover is falling and that already for this reason less franchise fee is paid. Unlike with (most) rental agreements, there is no monthly fixed contribution in this case.
In my view, this aspect has wrongly not been included in the considerations of the Court of Appeal and in doing so, the Court of Appeal seems (perhaps unintentionally) to introduce a rule of law that makes it possible for franchisees (in the sectors affected by corona) to set their turnover-dependent franchise fee for the leave half unpaid or even claim it back.
[1] See ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2021:16, paragraph 3.10.
Ludwig & Van Dam lawyers, franchise legal advice.
Do you want to respond? Then email to albers@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.