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
Does a franchisee have to accept a new model franchise agreement?
On 31 March 2017, the District Court of Rotterdam, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2017:2457, ruled in interlocutory proceedings on the question whether franchisor Bram Ladage had complied with the franchise agreement with its franchisee.
Mandatory (market-based) purchase prices for franchisees
To what extent can a franchisor change agreements about the (market) purchase prices of the goods that the franchisees are obliged to purchase?
Director’s liability of a franchisee after failing to rely on an unsound prognosis.
On 11 July 2017, the Court of Appeal of 's-Hertogenbosch made a decision on whether the franchisor could successfully sue the director of a BV for non-compliance with the
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.