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

Column Franchise+ – 50 percent more franchise lawsuits

The 2018 Legal Franchise Statistics published by Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten shows that there has been a 50% increase in the number of judgments in court cases rendered in 2017 compared to

By Theodoor Ludwig|31-05-2018|Categories: Franchise statistics, Statements & current affairs|Tags: |

A closer look at the intention to introduce franchising legislation

On May 23rd, State Secretary Mona Keijzer informed the House of Representatives about the imminent franchise legislation. The National Franchise Guide previously published this article.

By Jeroen Sterk|28-05-2018|Categories: Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: |

On the edge of a franchisee’s exclusive territory

The Court of Appeal of Arnhem-Leeuwarden ruled on 15 May 2018, ECLI:NL:GHARL:2018:4395, on the question whether a franchisor has a branch just over the edge of the exclusively granted protection area.

Can a franchisee cohabit with a competing entrepreneur?

Can a franchisee violate a non-compete clause by cohabiting with someone who runs a competing business? On January 12, 2018, the District Court of Central Netherlands ruled

Go to Top