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
Which court for a rental and franchise agreement?
Which court is competent to rule on a related rental and franchise agreement?
Interview Franchise+ – mrs. J. Sterk and AW Dolphijn – “Reversal burden of proof in forecasts honored by court”
The new Acquisition Fraud Act indeed appears to be relevant for the franchise industry, according to this article from Franchise+.
Franchisor convicted under the Acquisition Fraud Act
For the first time, a court has ruled, with reference to the Acquisition Fraud Act, that if a franchisee claims that the franchisor has presented an unsatisfactory prognosis
Agreements Related to the Franchise Agreement
On 31 October 2017, the Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal issued similar judgments for nineteen franchisees (ECLI:NL:GHARL:2017:9453 through ECLI:NL:GHARL:2017:9472).
Column Franchise+ – mr. J. Sterk – “Franchisee does body check better than franchise check”
A gym embarks on a franchise concept that offers “Body Checks” and discounts to (potential) members in collaboration with health insurers.
Seminar Mrs. J. Sterk and M. Munnik – Thursday, November 2, 2017: “Important legal developments for franchisors”
Attorneys Jeroen Sterk and Maaike Munnik of Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten will update you on the status of and developments surrounding the Dutch Franchise Code and the Acquisition Fraude Act.