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
![232court-min](https://www.ludwigvandam.nl/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/232court-min.jpg)
Other messages
Mitigation fine of franchise agreement at supermarket
On 22 April 2015, the East Brabant District Court ruled on a dispute between a franchisee and a franchisor (Emté Franchise BV).
Arbitration clause applicable to franchise agreement? Maybe not
An arbitration clause is occasionally found in franchise agreements.
(Directors’ and shareholders’) liability in the event of transfer or phasing out the franchise formula
(Directors' and shareholders') liability in the event of transfer or phasing out the franchise formula
Directors’ liability in the event of an incorrect forecast
On 4 February 2015, the Rotterdam District Court rendered a judgment on, among other things, the question of whether the director of a selling legal entity was liable.
C1000 loses appeal for inspection of C1000 deal
C1000 loses appeal for inspection of C1000 deal
Supermarket letter – 9
The C1000 Association loses appeal for inspection of the C1000 deal