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
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
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,
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.