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

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

By Jeroen Sterk|01-09-2017|Categories: Dispute settlement, Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , |

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

Franchise & Law No. 5 – Acquisition Fraud and Franchising Act

The Acquisition Fraud Act came into effect on 1 July 2016. This includes amendments to Section 6:194 of the Dutch Civil Code.

By Ludwig en van Dam|10-08-2017|Categories: Dispute settlement, Forecasting issues, Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , , |

Does a franchisee have to accept a new model franchise agreement?

On 31 March 2017, the District Court of Rotterdam, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2017:2457, ruled in interlocutory proceedings on the question whether franchisor Bram Ladage had complied with the franchise agreement with its franchisee.

Mandatory (market-based) purchase prices for franchisees

To what extent can a franchisor change agreements about the (market) purchase prices of the goods that the franchisees are obliged to purchase?

Go to Top