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
Article in Entrance: “New owner”
“The catering company where I work has been taken over. The new owner now says that I no longer have to work for him, but can he refuse me as an employee?”
Directors’ liability in the settlement of a franchise agreement
Privately, can the director of a franchisee legal entity be liable to the franchisor if the franchisee legal entity wrongfully fails to provide business to the franchisor?
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.