Delivery stop by franchisor not allowed
On 9 February 2017, the provisional relief judge of the District Court of Gelderland, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2017:1372, ruled that a franchisor was not allowed to suddenly stop its obligation to supply the franchisee, despite the fact that the franchisee was in substantial payment arrears.
The franchisee had significantly reduced the payment arrears. For several years the franchisor had granted a substantial supplier credit for the remainder. It has not been established that the franchisor indicated at any time that the payment arrears were unacceptable to it as franchisor and that it had to be reduced to a certain amount within a certain period, or that it had to be repaid in full. The franchisor was therefore not free to suddenly take the position not to supply the franchisee anymore and to claim the full outstanding amount at once, without observing a term.
Another thing is that the granting of the supplier credit does not automatically entail the obligation to allow and continue to allow a further increase. The franchisor was therefore (well) free to supply the franchisee against payment in advance.
Franchisors cannot simply assume that they can always put the franchisee in jeopardy if the franchisee has payment arrears
mr. AW Dolphijn – Franchise lawyer
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice.
Do you want to respond? Go to dolphijn@ludwigvandam.nl .
Other messages
Bankrupt because the franchisor refused to sell the franchise company – dated January 28, 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The District Court of The Hague has dealt with a request from a franchisor to declare a franchisee bankrupt.
Prescribed shop fitting – dated January 28, 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Midden-Nederland District Court has ruled on whether a franchisee is obliged to carry the shop fittings prescribed by the franchisor.
Ludwig & Van Dam attorneys summon Sandd and PostNL on behalf of the Sandd franchisees – dated 9 January 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Association of Franchisees of Sandd (VFS) has today summoned Sandd and PostNL before the court in Arnhem. The VFS believes that Sandd and PostNL are letting the franchisees down hard.
Article The National Franchise Guide: “Why joint and several liability, for example, next to private?” – dated 7 January 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
Franchisees are often asked to co-sign the franchise agreement in addition to their franchise, for example. Sometimes franchisees refuse to do so and the franchise agreement is not signed.
Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten assists Sandd franchisees: Franchisees Sandd challenge postal monopoly in court – dated 12 November 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Association of Franchisees of Sandd (VFS) is challenging the decision of State Secretary Mona Keijzer to approve the postal merger between PostNL and Sandd before the court in Rotterdam.
Franchisee trapped by non-compete clause? – dated October 21, 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
The District Court of East Brabant has ruled that a franchisee was still bound by the non-competition clause in the event of premature termination of the franchise agreement.