Extensive application of the prohibition of competition from the Franchise Act
In a judgment of the Noord-Holland court of 11 February 2021, ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2021:2356, the preliminary relief judge applies the rules of the Franchise Act regarding the prohibition of competition to an agency relationship.
A broker has entered into an agency agreement with a broker organization. Pursuant to the non-competition clause, the estate agent has committed itself for 24 months after termination of the agreement to refrain from brokerage activities in the work area.
The preliminary relief judge has established, as also argued by the estate agent, that the Franchise Act came into force on 1 January 2021. It is true that the parties have not concluded a franchise agreement according to the preliminary relief judge and a transitional law of two years applies, but the interpretation of the benchmark to be assessed can be based on the legislation on that point. Section 7:290(2)(d) of the Dutch Civil Code stipulates that a clause that restricts the franchisee’s ability to operate in a certain manner after the end of the franchise agreement is only valid if it has lasted for one year after the end of the franchise agreement. does not exceed. In view of that provision, the preliminary relief judge sees reason to suspend the non-competition clause for a period of one year.
It is striking that in the case of the agency agreement, the law stipulates in Article 7:443 paragraph 2 of the Dutch Civil Code that a postal non-competition ban for a period of 2 years is in principle permitted. However, the preliminary relief judge is in line with the future rules of the Franchise Act, where a post-competition prohibition is maximized to 1 year in Article 7:290 paragraph 2 sub d of the Dutch Civil Code. The broker is therefore bound by a post-competition prohibition of 1 year after the end of the agreement, instead of 2 years. Apparently the preliminary relief judge believes that the relevant protective statutory provision does not extend far enough for the agent. The limitation of the post-competition prohibition from the Franchise Act has a wide scope of application.
Ludwig & Van Dam lawyers, franchise legal advice.
Do you want to respond? Then email to dolphijn@ludwigvandam.nl
Other messages
Liability accountant for prepared prognosis?
In a judgment of the Court of Appeal of 's-Hertogenbosch of 11 July 2017, ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2017:3153, it was discussed that franchisees accused the franchisor's accountant of being liable
How far does the bank’s duty of care extend?
Some time ago the question was raised in case law what the position of the bank is in the triangular relationship franchisor – bank – franchisee.
Burden of proof reversal in forecasting as misleading advertising?
In an interlocutory judgment of 15 June 2017, the District Court of Zeeland-West-Brabant, ECLI:NL:RBZWB:2017:3833, ruled on a claim for (among other things) suspension of the non-compete clause.
Fine for franchisor because aspiring franchisee is foreigner
On 5 July 2017, the Council of State, ECLI:NL:RVS:2017:1815, decided whether, in the case of (proposed) cooperation between a franchisor and a prospective franchisee, the franchisor
Article in Entrance: “Company name”
“I came up with a wonderful name for my catering company and incurred the necessary costs for this. Now there is another entrepreneur who is going to use almost the same one. Is that allowed?"
The bank’s duty of care in franchise agreements
On 23 May 2017, the Court of Appeal in The Hague, EQLI:NL:GHDHA:2017:1368, had to rule on the question whether the bank should have warned a prospective franchisee in connection with the