Franchisor hinders litigation – An unbalanced arbitration clause
This has been agreed in a franchise agreement disputes shall be settled by arbitration, to be held in New York, in the English language. The court of Amsterdam considered that agreement to be valid. On appeal, the opinion was different. See the judgment of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal of 3 July 2014, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2014:2270.
Subway International BV is located in Amsterdam and has concluded a franchise agreement with a franchisee in Enschede for the operation of a sandwich shop under the Subway formula. The parent company of Subway International BV is from the United States.
The franchisee gets into a dispute with Subway International BV and summons Subway International BV before the court in Amsterdam. Subway International BV refers to the arbitration clause in the applicable general terms and conditions. There it is stipulated that disputes will be settled under the law of Liechtenstein, and that the proceedings will be held in English and in New York, in accordance with UNCITRAL’s Arbitration Rules. The court agrees. The franchisee appeals, because it is believed that the clause is null and void since it would be unreasonably onerous for the franchisee.
First of all, the court wonders whether the arbitration clause should be assessed under the law of Liechtenstein. That question is answered in the affirmative in an interim judgment. See Amsterdam Court of Appeal 20 August 2013, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2013:2580.
The second question is whether, under the law of Liechtenstein, the arbitration clause is also valid. Liechtenstein law has a rule that a contractual arrangement may be invalid if there is a “ significant imbalance ” between the contact parties.
The Court states first and foremost that the franchisee must be seen as an economically weaker party compared to the franchisor, which is a multinational with more branches worldwide than Macdonalds. The franchisor’s financial resources, expertise, and economic strength and power far exceed those of the franchisee. Even if the franchisee were to plead his case without legal assistance, the franchisee would have to travel to the United States to defend his case. According to the court, the possibility to be heard by means of a conference call cannot be equated with arguing the point of view at a hearing. The costs of the arbitration procedure prescribed by the franchisor are therefore much higher than the costs of an (arbitration) procedure in the Netherlands. The fact that litigation must be conducted in the United States and in English is therefore solely in favor of the franchisor, now that its parent company is located there.
The franchise contract is significantly unbalanced on this point and therefore cannot stand. In effect, the franchisor creates an unacceptable barrier to the franchisee’s ability to litigate.
It is important for both franchisors and franchisees to enter into a balanced franchise agreement. If that balance is significantly disturbed, this can lead to the invalidity of contractual agreements. Good prior testing of the franchise agreement is therefore a must.
Mr AW Dolphijn – Franchise lawyer
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys,franchise legal advice. Do you want to respond? Mail to dolphijn@ludwigvandam.nl
Other messages
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?
Director’s liability of a franchisee after failing to rely on an unsound prognosis.
On 11 July 2017, the Court of Appeal of 's-Hertogenbosch made a decision on whether the franchisor could successfully sue the director of a BV for non-compliance with the
Liability accountant for prepared prognosis?
In a judgment of the Court of Appeal of 's-Hertogenbosch of 11 July 2017, ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2017:3153, it was discussed that franchisees accused the franchisor's accountant of being liable
How far does the bank’s duty of care extend?
Some time ago the question was raised in case law what the position of the bank is in the triangular relationship franchisor – bank – franchisee.
Burden of proof reversal in forecasting as misleading advertising?
In an interlocutory judgment of 15 June 2017, the District Court of Zeeland-West-Brabant, ECLI:NL:RBZWB:2017:3833, ruled on a claim for (among other things) suspension of the non-compete clause.