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

Judge: Protect franchisee against supermarket organization (Coop) as lessor

Does the franchisee need legal protection from supermarket franchisor Coop? The District Court of Rotterdam ruled on 9 February 2018, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2018:1151, that this is the case.

Acquisition fraud vs. error in franchise forecasting

Who has to prove that the franchisor's forecast is unsound? In principle, this is the franchisee. If the franchisee invokes the Acquisition Fraud Act, it may be that

Obligation to sell back at the end of the franchise agreement

Franchise agreements sometimes provide that the franchisee is required to sell back purchased assets at the end of the franchise agreement.

Position of franchisees in franchisor restructuring

Franchisees must be adequately and generously informed in advance by the franchisor about the content and consequences of (further) agreements...

Interview Franchise+ – mrs. J. Sterk and AW Dolphijn – “Reversal of burden of proof in forecasts approved by court” – February 2018

The new Acquisition Fraud Act indeed appears to be relevant for the franchise industry, according to this article from Franchise+. Alex Dolphijn of Ludwig & Van Dam assists a franchisee in a

By Ludwig en van Dam|01-02-2018|Categories: Dispute settlement, Forecasting issues, Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , , |
Go to Top