Franchise agreement/sublease agreement link
Court of Dordrecht, subdistrict sector
Franchise agreements and sublease agreements must be adequately linked. After all, the sublease agreement is governed by mandatory tenancy law. This cannot simply be deviated from. An adequate link takes place by means of a subdistrict court request, to be made when the franchise agreement and sublease agreement are signed. Subsequently, the subdistrict court may approve deviations from the mandatory tenancy provisions, for example with regard to the term of the sublease agreement and the moment of termination. With an adequate link, the franchise agreement and sublease agreement are equal in terms of term and termination.
A case has recently been submitted to the subdistrict sector of the court. The franchisor invoked deviating rental clauses that had not been approved in advance by the subdistrict court judge. The subdistrict court concluded that there is no mixed agreement, but two separate agreements. As a result, the franchisee was able to successfully invoke the sublease agreement, even though the franchise agreement had been terminated. Despite the termination of the franchise agreement, the franchisor, as a sub-lessor, should have taken into account the interests of the sub-tenant/franchisee. The subtenant/franchisee suffered damage as a result, for which the franchisor/sublessor was liable, according to the court in Dordrecht. The former franchisee obtained a strong position through this construction.
If the franchisor and franchisee wish to enter into a mixed agreement, they must always request an adequate connection to the subdistrict court. Simultaneous termination is possible in this way.
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
Agreements Related to the Franchise Agreement
On 31 October 2017, the Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal issued similar judgments for nineteen franchisees (ECLI:NL:GHARL:2017:9453 through ECLI:NL:GHARL:2017:9472).
Column Franchise+ – mr. J. Sterk – “Franchisee does body check better than franchise check”
A gym embarks on a franchise concept that offers “Body Checks” and discounts to (potential) members in collaboration with health insurers.
Seminar Mrs. J. Sterk and M. Munnik – Thursday, November 2, 2017: “Important legal developments for franchisors”
Attorneys Jeroen Sterk and Maaike Munnik of Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten will update you on the status of and developments surrounding the Dutch Franchise Code and the Acquisition Fraude Act.
Goodwill at end of franchise agreement
In a case before the Amsterdam Court of Appeal on 26 September 2017, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:3900 (Seal & Go), a franchisee claimed compensation for goodwill (ex Article 7:308 of the Dutch Civil Code) after the
Article in Entrance: “Resignation”
Fire an employee who is not performing well? The subdistrict court is strict. If you, as an employer, cannot demonstrate that you have done everything yourself to make the person function better, it will be
Cost price that is too high as a hidden franchise fee
An interlocutory judgment of the District Court of The Hague dated 30 August 2017, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2017:10597 (Happy Nurse) shows that the court has considered the question whether the