Does a franchisee have to accept a new model franchise agreement?
On 31 March 2017, the District Court of Rotterdam, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2017:2457, ruled in interlocutory proceedings on the question whether franchisor Bram Ladage could have terminated the franchise agreement with its franchisee at the end of the term, because the franchisee has a new model. of its franchise agreement.
The franchisee was unwilling to sign the most recent standard franchise agreement and, according to Bram Ladage, was also unwilling to discuss this with the franchisor.
The franchise agreement stipulates that the franchisor is only entitled to terminate the agreement on the expiry date if it cannot reasonably be expected to continue the agreement. Bram Ladage has indicated that it can no longer be required to continue the franchise agreement beyond the expiration date.
To this end, she argued that the text in the 1997 franchise agreement is outdated and has caused major problems over the years, such as the lack of authority to monitor and monitor hygiene rules and the inability as a franchisor to make adjustments. and franchisee to address, for example, declining turnover or lagging quality of business operations.
Bram Ladage also pointed out the importance of uniform agreements with the franchisees. The court ruled that the pursuit of uniformity in all franchise contracts is not in itself a justification for termination. The fact that Bram Ladage is obliged under the franchise agreement to apply equal conditions in equal cases does not mean that the franchisee in question is automatically obliged to agree to amendments to the franchise agreement.
Bram Ladage is ordered to comply with the existing franchise agreement.
Franchisors would do well to go through a careful process in the event of intended unilateral changes in the franchise relationship, in which the interests of each individual franchisee are carefully weighed.
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
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.