District protection no protection against termination due to urgent own use – dated September 17, 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
On 10 September 2019, the Court of Appeal of The Hague, ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2019:2341, made a decision in the matter between Bram Ladage as franchisor and one of its franchisees. The question to the was in order, is whether the franchisor as lessor can execute the lease terminate due to urgent own use, while this own use, in the sentence of district protection, would be excluded under the franchise agreement.
The franchisor had terminated that lease due to urgent personal use, among other things because it wished to operate the business space itself again as a snack bar and that it would receive a profit from that exploitation. can achieve a better return than renting to the franchisee. The franchisor had drawn up an operating budget for this purpose. The court considers that, insofar as the franchisee would be entitled to a goodwill compensation (within the meaning of Article 7:308 of the Dutch Civil Code) at the end of the exploitation, the difference between the net profit of its own exploitation by the franchisor on the one hand and the rental income for the franchisor on the other, is so great that it is still plausible that a higher return can be achieved by the franchisor with its own operation.
The franchisee pointed out that in the franchise agreement was agreed that the franchisee has the exclusive entitled to use the Bram Ladage system in the business premises. According to the franchisee, this means that the franchisor as lessor has the cannot cancel the rent due to urgent own use, because this is exactly what own use with the territory protection in the franchise agreement is excluded. The after all, the franchise agreement will continue until 1 January 2023. Judged however, it is ruled by the court that the duration of the franchise agreement is not is relevant, as the franchise agreement does not entitle the continuation of the lease of the business space.
In this case, the term of a franchise agreement therefore offers no guarantee for the premature termination of the rental agreement by the franchisor on the grounds of urgent personal use, even if district exclusivity has been agreed in the franchise agreement.
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
Obligation to sell back at the end of the franchise agreement
Franchise agreements sometimes provide that the franchisee is required to sell back purchased assets at the end of the franchise agreement.
Supermarket letter – 20
Uncertain legal position of Emté franchisees
Position of franchisees in franchisor restructuring
Franchisees must be adequately and generously informed in advance by the franchisor about the content and consequences of (further) agreements...
Interview Franchise+ – mrs. J. Sterk and AW Dolphijn – “Reversal of burden of proof in forecasts approved by court” – February 2018
The new Acquisition Fraud Act indeed appears to be relevant for the franchise industry, according to this article from Franchise+. Alex Dolphijn of Ludwig & Van Dam assists a franchisee in a
Article Franchise & Law No. 7 – Franchise agreement as general terms and conditions
Uniformity of the franchise formula and (therefore also) uniformity of the agreements with the franchisees will often be of great importance to the franchisor.
The franchisee’s customer base
If the partnership between a franchisee and a franchisor ends, the question of who will continue to serve the customers may arise.