Excusable infringement of territory exclusivity
The District Court of Rotterdam recently ruled on a matter concerning infringement of the agreed district exclusivity. The franchise agreement stipulated that the franchisee enjoyed the exclusive right to operate the formula within a radius of 15 kilometers from its location. In fact, however, several branches of the franchisor were located within a radius of 15 kilometers. Franchisee claimed to suffer damage as a result of this infringement. The franchisee requested an injunction in interlocutory proceedings subject to forfeiture of a penalty. The court rules that the alleged damage by the franchisee has not been substantiated or has not been sufficiently substantiated and that there is therefore no urgent interest in instituting such a claim in summary proceedings. The court also considers that the exclusivity was in fact not complied with and the franchisee was also aware of this. Moreover, the franchisee had failed to protest in time. The franchisee’s claims were rejected in full.
The foregoing means that franchisees cannot lightly invoke provisions in the franchise agreement without a well-founded interest if the parties actually act differently over a long period of time. In those cases, the exceeding of the standard may be excusable. For franchisors, it is therefore easier to enforce standards that are exceeded if the provisions are observed more strictly in practice and if the policy to this effect is clear. In particular, franchisees must protest in good time.
mr J. Sterk – franchise lawyer
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice Would you like to respond? Mail to info@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.