Franchisor prohibits opening (franchise) company
A franchisor applied for interim measures to prohibit a franchisee from opening a franchisee’s business. See Court of the Northern Netherlands 26 June 2018, ECLI:NL:RBNNE:2018:2428. The franchisor believed that the franchisee had wrongly failed to consult with the franchisor before opening the business, to which the franchisee had invited 80 to 100 people.
The preliminary relief judge rules that the franchisee is in breach of contract by deliberately planning the opening of the company outside the franchise agreement without referring to the franchisor, while it has been established that the company was set up thanks to the franchise agreement. Moreover, it has been established that the franchisor and franchisee had precisely agreed that the opening of the company would take place in joint consultation. The preliminary relief judge prohibits the official opening of the company planned by the franchisee, despite the fact that the invitations had already been sent and the planning had already been established.
mr. AW Dolphijn – franchise lawyer
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice. Do you want to respond? Go to dolphijn@ludwigvandam.nl .
![221open-min](https://www.ludwigvandam.nl/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/221open-min.jpg)
Other messages
Relocation of franchisees
For various reasons, it may be necessary for a franchisee during the term of his franchise agreement
Linking rental agreement and franchise agreement: new legislation
The new tenancy law is expected to come into force in a few months' time.
Obligations of the lessor to remedy defects in the rented property
A franchise agreement is often closely linked to a rental agreement.
The right of the franchisor to sell its franchise organization to a
Following on from the previously published article in this series on the right of a franchisor
Catering agreements / Beer supply agreements II
An article about catering agreements was recently published in this series of articles.
Exclusive purchase obligations.
In a judgment of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal dated 31 October 2002, which judgment was rendered in response to an appeal lodged against an earlier summary judgment