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
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.
Fine for franchisor because aspiring franchisee is foreigner
On 5 July 2017, the Council of State, ECLI:NL:RVS:2017:1815, decided whether, in the case of (proposed) cooperation between a franchisor and a prospective franchisee, the franchisor
Article in Entrance: “Company name”
“I came up with a wonderful name for my catering company and incurred the necessary costs for this. Now there is another entrepreneur who is going to use almost the same one. Is that allowed?"
The bank’s duty of care in franchise agreements
On 23 May 2017, the Court of Appeal in The Hague, EQLI:NL:GHDHA:2017:1368, had to rule on the question whether the bank should have warned a prospective franchisee in connection with the
Article in Entrance: “Standing up”
“Can I fire an employee with immediate effect if he steals something trivial, such as food that has passed its expiration date?”
Arbitration clause in franchise agreement sometimes inconvenient
On 20 July 2016, the District Court of Gelderland, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2016:4868, ruled on the validity of an agreement in a franchise agreement, whereby disputes would be settled