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
Column Franchise + – mr. Th.R. Ludwig: “Towards strict liability”
The Supreme Court recently ruled in a prognosis issue.
Article in Entrance: “Rentals”
“The landlord increased the prices of the property every year, but he hasn't done this for 2 years, maybe he forgets. Can he still claim an overdue amount later?”
No valid appeal to non-compete clause in franchising
On 28 February 2017, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2017:1469, the provisional relief judge of the District Court of Gelderland ruled on whether a franchisee could be bound by a non-compete clause.
Structurally unsound revenue forecasts from the franchisor
On 15 March 2017, the District Court of Limburg ruled in eight similar judgments (including ECLI:NL:RBLIM:2017:2344) on the franchise agreements of various franchisees of the P3 franchise formula.
Franchisee obliged to cooperate with formula change?
On 24 March 2017, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2017:1860, the preliminary relief judge of the Amsterdam District Court once again considered the issue in which Intertoys wishes to convert Bart Smit's stores
Delivery stop by franchisor not allowed
On 9 February 2017, the preliminary relief judge of the District Court of Gelderland, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2017:1372, ruled that a franchisor had not fulfilled its obligation to supply the franchisee