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
Supermarket letter – 19
Coop liability for damages due to non-performance towards the franchisee
Damage estimate after wrongful termination of the franchise agreement by the franchisor
In a judgment of the Supreme Court of 15 September 2017, ECLI:NL:HR:2017:2372 (Franchisee/Coop), it was discussed that supermarket organization Coop had not complied with agreements, as a result of which the franchisee
Franchisor is obliged to extend the franchise agreement
On 6 September 2017, the Rotterdam District Court ruled, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2017:6975 (Misty / Bram Ladage), that the refusal to extend a franchise agreement by a franchisor
The (in)validity of a post-contractual non-competition clause in a franchise agreement: analogy with employment law?
On 5 September 2017, the District Court of Gelderland, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2017:4565, rendered a judgment on, among other things, the question of whether Bruna, as a franchisor, could invoke the prohibition for a
Column Franchise+ – mr. J Sterk: “Court orders fast food chain to extend franchise agreement
The case is set to begin this year. For years, the franchisee has been refusing to sign the new franchise agreement that was offered with renewal, as it would lead to a deterioration of his legal position
Not a valid non-compete clause for franchisee
On 18 November 2016, the interim relief judge of the Central Netherlands District Court, ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2016:7754, rendered a judgment in the issue concerning whether the franchisee was held