Failing to cooperate in checking hygiene requirements of the franchisee
The court in Amsterdam recently ruled in a case where a franchisee did not meet all hygiene requirements. In addition, he was contractually obliged to resolve these shortcomings. The franchisor has summoned the franchisee to do so several times. Subsequently, the franchisee does not cooperate with a renewed inspection and in this way prevents an adequate inspection of hygiene requirements that are part of the franchise formula.
Ultimately, the franchise agreement is dissolved and the franchisor invokes the non-compete clause. In interlocutory proceedings, the presiding judge considers that the franchisee should at least have cooperated in a closer inspection and control of his establishment. Furthermore, the hygiene requirements, as pertaining to the franchise organization, were a contractual requirement. In addition, this had been further coordinated and agreed upon in the Franchise Council. The president therefore holds the franchisee to the non-competition clause.
Essentially, this is a simple matter. The franchisee should have contractually met the hygiene requirements. Furthermore, he should in any case have cooperated with a closer inspection and not – not even after summons from the franchisor – prevented a new inspection. As a result, he has blocked every conceivable defense and has raised the suspicion that the franchise agreement has been terminated with justification.
It goes without saying that HCCAP standards, et cetera, are of eminent importance for franchise relationships in fast food, catering and food. In addition, the checks were based on random checks by the Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority.
Mr Th.R. Ludwig – Franchise lawyer
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice Would you like to respond? Mail to ludwig@ludwigvandam.nl
Other messages
Bankrupt because the franchisor refused to sell the franchise company – dated January 28, 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The District Court of The Hague has dealt with a request from a franchisor to declare a franchisee bankrupt.
Prescribed shop fitting – dated January 28, 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Midden-Nederland District Court has ruled on whether a franchisee is obliged to carry the shop fittings prescribed by the franchisor.
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.