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

Infringement of exclusive service area by franchisor in connection with formula change dated February 27, 2017

On 30 January 2017, the provisional relief judge of the District Court of Noord-Holland, ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2017:688 (Intertoys/franchisee), was asked how to deal with the

By Alex Dolphijn|27-02-2017|Categories: Dispute settlement, Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , |

Forecasts at startup franchise formula

The Amsterdam Court of Appeal ruled on 14 February 2017, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:455 (Tot Straks/franchisee) on the question whether the franchisor had provided an unsatisfactory prognosis and whether the

Mandatory transfer of franchise business to franchisor?

On January 23, 2017, the District Court of Amsterdam, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2017:412 (CoffeeCompany/Dam Spirit BV) rendered a judgment on the question whether a franchisee upon termination of the cooperation

Transfer customer data to franchisor

In its judgment of 10 January 2017, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:68 (OnlineAccountants.nl), the Amsterdam Court ruled, among other things, on the question of how customer data should be transferred.

Franchise Closing Sale – Who Gets the Sale Proceeds?

The judgment of the District Court of the Northern Netherlands dated 12 October 2016, ECLI:NL:RBNNE:2016:5061 (Administrator/Expert Group and Rabobank), focused on the question whether the franchisor, together with the bank,

By Alex Dolphijn|10-02-2017|Categories: Dispute settlement, Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , |

Column Franchise+ – mr. Th.R. Ludwig: “Judge: franchisor’s duty of care comparable to that of a bank”

Various judgments in 2016 made it clear how high the standard of care for a franchisor towards its franchisees is.

Go to Top