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
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
Delivery stop by franchisor not allowed
On 9 February 2017, the preliminary relief judge of the District Court of Gelderland, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2017:1372, ruled that a franchisor had not fulfilled its obligation to supply the franchisee