Franchisee protection in case of subletting
Court of Rotterdam, subdistrict sector
The subdistrict court recently ruled in connection with a deviation from mandatory tenancy law, which means that the lease must be terminated when the franchise agreement is terminated.
The subdistrict court considers that the independent tenant interest of the franchisee in this situation (car washes) is comparable to operating agreements of petrol stations, in which the independent tenant interest is also relevant. The purpose of the construction submitted to the subdistrict court is to guarantee that the lease ends when the franchise agreement ends. However, the subdistrict court rejected the request, considering the following:
– there are too many and too broad termination options between franchisee and franchisor;
– the statutory cancellation and termination options for the franchisee are unnecessarily set aside;
– by relinquishing its security of tenure without further compensation from the franchisor, the franchisee loses goodwill;
– the consequences of any approval of the deviating stipulations are difficult to foresee, partly in connection with ongoing obligations. On this basis, it is not considered desirable to exclude the possibility of judicial review in advance.
The subdistrict court also considers that the franchisee is a small self-employed person and wholly dependent on the activities in the franchise establishment in question. In the view of the subdistrict court, the fact that the franchisor is part of an internationally operating franchise organization does not mean that the franchisee should be denied (partial) rent protection.
The ruling shows that during assessments the interests of franchisees are carefully weighed up by subdistrict court judges and that linking them to deviating rental clauses is not necessarily the right course of action. Franchisee and franchisor are advised to weigh their rights and interests carefully and, if necessary, to deviate from mandatory tenancy law on the basis of consensus. In addition, the tenant’s interest of the franchisee may not extend beyond what is necessary in the context of preserving the location for the franchise organization. Compensation schemes, for example in the form of take-back schemes, are certainly important in that context. Franchisee and franchisor are therefore wise to anticipate this by also including any compensation arrangements in their agreements in advance.
Mr Th.R. Ludwig – Franchise attorney
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice Would you like to respond? Mail to ludwig@ludwigvandam.nl
Other messages
Bankrupt because the franchisor refused to sell the franchise company – dated January 28, 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The District Court of The Hague has dealt with a request from a franchisor to declare a franchisee bankrupt.
Prescribed shop fitting – dated January 28, 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Midden-Nederland District Court has ruled on whether a franchisee is obliged to carry the shop fittings prescribed by the franchisor.
Ludwig & Van Dam attorneys summon Sandd and PostNL on behalf of the Sandd franchisees – dated 9 January 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Association of Franchisees of Sandd (VFS) has today summoned Sandd and PostNL before the court in Arnhem. The VFS believes that Sandd and PostNL are letting the franchisees down hard.
Article The National Franchise Guide: “Why joint and several liability, for example, next to private?” – dated 7 January 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
Franchisees are often asked to co-sign the franchise agreement in addition to their franchise, for example. Sometimes franchisees refuse to do so and the franchise agreement is not signed.
Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten assists Sandd franchisees: Franchisees Sandd challenge postal monopoly in court – dated 12 November 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Association of Franchisees of Sandd (VFS) is challenging the decision of State Secretary Mona Keijzer to approve the postal merger between PostNL and Sandd before the court in Rotterdam.
Franchisee trapped by non-compete clause? – dated October 21, 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
The District Court of East Brabant has ruled that a franchisee was still bound by the non-competition clause in the event of premature termination of the franchise agreement.