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

No Dutch Franchise Code, but legislation on franchising

The State Secretary has announced that the Dutch Franchise Code ("NFC") will not be enshrined in law. However, there will be legislation on franchising.

HEMA sentenced to suspend e-commerce contribution to franchisees

HEMA is in conflict with its franchisees about the contribution to e-commerce costs. HEMA believes that the existing scheme from 1997 is outdated.

Error or deception in the conclusion of the franchise agreement

A franchisee who regrets after entering into a franchise agreement may believe that before or at the conclusion of the franchise agreement by the franchisor ...

The supplier prescribed by the franchisor is not performing? What now?

The Court of Appeal of 's-Hertogenbosch ruled on 20 February 2018, ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2018:727, on the question of who must prove that the franchisee was misled when entering into the

Go to Top