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
Franchisee obliged to cooperate with formula change?
On 24 March 2017, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2017:1860, the preliminary relief judge of the Amsterdam District Court once again considered the issue in which Intertoys wishes to convert Bart Smit's stores
Delivery stop by franchisor not allowed
On 9 February 2017, the preliminary relief judge of the District Court of Gelderland, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2017:1372, ruled that a franchisor had not fulfilled its obligation to supply the franchisee
Alex Dolphijn in the Financial Dagblad about the judgment of the Supreme Court regarding Street-One
Franchisors more liable for incorrect forecasts Franchisees can now more easily hold their parent organization liable for incorrect profit and turnover forecasts.
Supermarket letter – 17
Supreme Court: More quickly liable for forecasts
Article in Entrance: “Small print”
“When I do business with a supplier, I never read the fine print. Recently I noticed that there are all kinds of things in it that I actually do not agree with.
Column Franchise+ – mr. Th.R. Ludwig: “Delivery stop by franchisor again not allowed”
Once again, the president in preliminary relief proceedings ruled on the question whether a franchisor's supply stop against the franchisee was permitted, with the franchisee paying a substantial