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 .
Other messages
Column Franchise+ – 50 percent more franchise lawsuits
The 2018 Legal Franchise Statistics published by Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten shows that there has been a 50% increase in the number of judgments in court cases rendered in 2017 compared to
A closer look at the intention to introduce franchising legislation
On May 23rd, State Secretary Mona Keijzer informed the House of Representatives about the imminent franchise legislation. The National Franchise Guide previously published this article.
Consumer Protection Applies to Franchisee
The consumer enjoys broad protection on the basis of the Civil Code.
Update Franchise Law
On 23 May 2018, the government indicated that it would prepare a legal regulation that creates a framework for four sub-areas of cooperation between franchisors and franchisees that are crucial
On the edge of a franchisee’s exclusive territory
The Court of Appeal of Arnhem-Leeuwarden ruled on 15 May 2018, ECLI:NL:GHARL:2018:4395, on the question whether a franchisor has a branch just over the edge of the exclusively granted protection area.
Can a franchisee cohabit with a competing entrepreneur?
Can a franchisee violate a non-compete clause by cohabiting with someone who runs a competing business? On January 12, 2018, the District Court of Central Netherlands ruled