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

Infringement of exclusive service area by franchisor in connection with formula change dated February 27, 2017

On 30 January 2017, the provisional relief judge of the District Court of Noord-Holland, ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2017:688 (Intertoys/franchisee), was asked how to deal with the

By Alex Dolphijn|27-02-2017|Categories: Dispute settlement, Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , |

Forecasts at startup franchise formula

The Amsterdam Court of Appeal ruled on 14 February 2017, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:455 (Tot Straks/franchisee) on the question whether the franchisor had provided an unsatisfactory prognosis and whether the

Mandatory transfer of franchise business to franchisor?

On January 23, 2017, the District Court of Amsterdam, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2017:412 (CoffeeCompany/Dam Spirit BV) rendered a judgment on the question whether a franchisee upon termination of the cooperation

Transfer customer data to franchisor

In its judgment of 10 January 2017, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:68 (OnlineAccountants.nl), the Amsterdam Court ruled, among other things, on the question of how customer data should be transferred.

Franchise Closing Sale – Who Gets the Sale Proceeds?

The judgment of the District Court of the Northern Netherlands dated 12 October 2016, ECLI:NL:RBNNE:2016:5061 (Administrator/Expert Group and Rabobank), focused on the question whether the franchisor, together with the bank,

By Alex Dolphijn|10-02-2017|Categories: Dispute settlement, Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , |

Column Franchise+ – mr. Th.R. Ludwig: “Judge: franchisor’s duty of care comparable to that of a bank”

Various judgments in 2016 made it clear how high the standard of care for a franchisor towards its franchisees is.

Go to Top