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
Which court for a rental and franchise agreement?
Which court is competent to rule on a related rental and franchise agreement?
Interview Franchise+ – mrs. J. Sterk and AW Dolphijn – “Reversal burden of proof in forecasts honored by court”
The new Acquisition Fraud Act indeed appears to be relevant for the franchise industry, according to this article from Franchise+.
Franchisor convicted under the Acquisition Fraud Act
For the first time, a court has ruled, with reference to the Acquisition Fraud Act, that if a franchisee claims that the franchisor has presented an unsatisfactory prognosis
Agreements Related to the Franchise Agreement
On 31 October 2017, the Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal issued similar judgments for nineteen franchisees (ECLI:NL:GHARL:2017:9453 through ECLI:NL:GHARL:2017:9472).
Column Franchise+ – mr. J. Sterk – “Franchisee does body check better than franchise check”
A gym embarks on a franchise concept that offers “Body Checks” and discounts to (potential) members in collaboration with health insurers.
Seminar Mrs. J. Sterk and M. Munnik – Thursday, November 2, 2017: “Important legal developments for franchisors”
Attorneys Jeroen Sterk and Maaike Munnik of Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten will update you on the status of and developments surrounding the Dutch Franchise Code and the Acquisition Fraude Act.