Court rules that corona crisis does not constitute force majeure – dated April 10, 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin

By Published On: 10-04-2020Categories: Statements & current affairs

If payment cannot be made due to the loss of income, then
there is not always a force majeure situation. The Court of Den Bosch 23
March 2020 (ECLI:NL:RBOBR:2020:1763) ruled that a tenant cannot appeal
to force majeure because of the corona crisis, because from the
commencement of the lease and therefore before the corona crisis
late payment of rent. The backlog was possible with the corona crisis
not be logged in. The lessor claimed the entire arrears,
plus fines for late payment. The court held as follows:

“As far as[gedaagden] intended to appeal with their defence
financial inability or inability to pay, the inability to pay,
no matter how annoying[gedaagden] , in the risk sphere of[gedaagden] is
and not release them from their payment obligations under the
lease agreement[eisers] dismisses. The subdistrict court judge signs this
indicates that it is already too late from the start of the rental agreement
payments through[gedaagden] , while there was no corona at that time
crisis.”

The court rules that the claimed entire rent arrears and fine
will have to be paid.

Perhaps the judgment would have been different if there had been no question at all
was from a late payment prior to the corona crisis and the
payment arrears are wholly and exclusively attributable to the
corona crisis.

 

mr. AW Dolphijn – franchise lawyer

Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice. Want
you respond? Go to dolphijn@ludwigvandam.nl

Other messages

Franchisor wrongly hinders internet sales by franchisee – dated September 19, 2018 – mr. AW Dolphin

Franchisor wrongly hinders internet sales by franchisee

Preferential right of purchase in lease does not apply – September 7, 2018 – mr. AW Dolphin

Preferential right of purchase in a rental agreement does not apply

Transfer of business with ‘preferred supplier’ of franchisees

On 13 June 2017, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal ruled in interlocutory proceedings, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:2144, on the question whether employees of a 'preferred supplier' of the

By Alex Dolphijn|07-08-2018|Categories: Dispute settlement, Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , |
Go to Top