Dissolution due to deviation from recommended prices: unacceptable under competition law
An important statement was recently made with regard to margin management and ditto pricing policy.
A manufacturer of mattresses is confronted with a dealer who, on his own initiative, offers 20% internet discounts on the recommended retail price of the mattress manufacturer in question.
Subsequently, immediately after the launch of the promotion on this website, a large number of dealers put pressure on the mattress manufacturer to end the dealer’s conduct in question. The mattress manufacturer has always taken the position that it does not care in itself to what extent dealers give consumers discounts, but that it cannot afford that in the future major dealers would no longer want to sell its products because they cannot live with the hefty discount practices of another dealer.
Since the mattress manufacturer even terminates the dealer agreement for this specific reason, there is an extremely far-reaching sanction for non-compliance with the recommended consumer prices. This conduct is contrary to competition law. After all, the bottom line is that the entrepreneur who does not adhere to the recommended prices is excluded in the most far-reaching way. After all, there is no discussion as to whether or not there is indirect soft incentive to maintain a certain consumer price and/or whether or not this course of action is fully justified. No, there will be a flat termination, specifically for that reason and that is unacceptable under competition law.
It is good that the Court of Appeal has understood this state of affairs and has subsequently declared the termination of the cooperation relationship null and void.
Ludwig & Van Dam franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice
Other messages
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.
Supermarket letter – 26
Supermarket Newsletter No. 26
Link franchise agreement and rental agreement uncertain? – dated October 14, 2019 – mr K. Bastiaans
It is no exception within a franchise relationship that the parties agree that the franchise agreement and the rental agreement are inextricably linked.