Although a non-compete clause is validly formulated in a franchise agreement, a situation may arise that is so diffuse that the franchisor cannot invoke it. See the judgment of the Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal of 10 October 2017, ECLI:NL:GHARL:2017:8777.

The franchisor argued that the franchisee had acted in violation of the non-compete clause by opening his new store. This stipulation meant that, if the agreement ends, the franchisee is prohibited for a period of six months from carrying out similar commercial activities within the territory.

The Court of Appeal shares the view of the preliminary relief judge who previously ruled that the franchisor could not invoke the non-compete clause. This was because the leased retail property had to make way for housing and the franchisor had terminated the franchise agreement per  canceled on January 1, 2012. In anticipation of new business premises to be rented from the franchisor, the franchisee (temporarily) operated a business under his own name. It was uncertain whether the franchisor would still be able to offer (suitable) business premises to continue the collaboration.

In view of this diffuse situation after the termination of the franchise agreement, it is insufficiently clear that the parties nevertheless continued the franchise agreement and that all provisions of the franchise agreement continued to apply in full. The appeal to the post-non-compete clause in the franchise agreements therefore failed.

If, upon termination of a franchise agreement, a franchisor leaves open whether the post-non-compete clause applies, this ambiguity can under certain circumstances be held against the franchisor.

mr. AW Dolphijn – Franchise lawyer

Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice. Do you want to respond? Go to dolphijn@ludwigvandam.nl .

Other messages

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.

By Alex Dolphijn|09-01-2020|Categories: Statements & current affairs|

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.

By Alex Dolphijn|12-11-2019|Categories: Statements & current affairs|Tags: , |

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.

Link franchise agreement and rental agreement uncertain? – dated October 14, 2019 – mr K. Bastiaans

It is no exception within a franchise relationship that the parties agree that the franchise agreement and the rental agreement are inextricably linked.

By mr. K. Bastiaans|14-10-2019|Categories: Franchise Knowledge Center / National Franchise and Formula Letter Publications|
Go to Top