Deviation from the duration of the franchise agreement and rental agreement

It often happens that franchisor and franchisee want to link their existing (sub)lease agreement and franchise agreement by means of stipulations that deviate from semi-mandatory tenancy law. In practice, it is then agreed that if the franchise agreement is terminated, the sublease agreement between franchisor and franchisee is also terminated. If the parties want to include such a deviating clause in their sublease agreement and then pass this clause on to their franchise agreement, judicial approval of that clause can be requested. If that approval is granted, the clause is no longer voidable on the basis of its deviating character, which is after all contrary to the law.

The court can only approve stipulations in which the disadvantages of the franchisee, also subtenant, are deviated from the specific provisions in this context. It is therefore useless to seek approval of other legal provisions that provide protection to the franchisee in his capacity as lessee, such as the prevention of abrupt price increase provisions.
In practice, there is usually a joint request from the franchisor and franchisee to obtain approval of the deviating clause. Approval is then granted to allow a different term of the sublease agreement to run parallel to that of the franchise agreement, so that both agreements can be terminated simultaneously for both parties.

In practice, this means that various subdistrict court judges give different judgments on the same applications. Usually, however, a clause as desired by the franchisor and franchisee is approved, provided it is accompanied by a good motivation. A proper clause in this context states that the franchisor, in its capacity as lessor, agrees with the franchisee in the (sublease) agreement that the franchise agreement can be terminated with immediate effect by means of a single written notification from the franchisor to the franchisee, whereby the franchisee will not object to the simultaneous termination of the sublease agreement following the franchise agreement – ​​without further notice and judicial review, the sublease agreement will then also be terminated.

It goes without saying that a nuanced formulation and motivation of the said clause and underlying regulation is a requirement if the approval is to actually have a chance of success.
Franchisor and franchisee must therefore jointly choose to invest in such a clause. Please note: in practice this does not mean that there is no longer any security of tenure for the franchisee / subtenant in that situation. However, the position of the parties is very clearly – pre-marked.

Ludwig & Van Dam franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice

Other messages

Damage estimate after wrongful termination of the franchise agreement by the franchisor

In a judgment of the Supreme Court of 15 September 2017, ECLI:NL:HR:2017:2372 (Franchisee/Coop), it was discussed that supermarket organization Coop had not complied with agreements, as a result of which the franchisee

Franchisor is obliged to extend the franchise agreement

On 6 September 2017, the Rotterdam District Court ruled, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2017:6975 (Misty / Bram Ladage), that the refusal to extend a franchise agreement by a franchisor

The (in)validity of a post-contractual non-competition clause in a franchise agreement: analogy with employment law?

On 5 September 2017, the District Court of Gelderland, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2017:4565, rendered a judgment on, among other things, the question of whether Bruna, as a franchisor, could invoke the prohibition for a

Column Franchise+ – mr. J Sterk: “Court orders fast food chain to extend franchise agreement

The case is set to begin this year. For years, the franchisee has been refusing to sign the new franchise agreement that was offered with renewal, as it would lead to a deterioration of his legal position

By Jeroen Sterk|01-09-2017|Categories: Dispute settlement, Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , |

Not a valid non-compete clause for franchisee

On 18 November 2016, the interim relief judge of the Central Netherlands District Court, ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2016:7754, rendered a judgment in the issue concerning whether the franchisee was held

Franchise & Law No. 5 – Acquisition Fraud and Franchising Act

The Acquisition Fraud Act came into effect on 1 July 2016. This includes amendments to Section 6:194 of the Dutch Civil Code.

By Ludwig en van Dam|10-08-2017|Categories: Dispute settlement, Forecasting issues, Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , , |
Go to Top