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

Interview Franchise+ – mrs. J. Sterk and AW Dolphijn – “Reversal burden of proof in forecasts honored by court”

The new Acquisition Fraud Act indeed appears to be relevant for the franchise industry, according to this article from Franchise+.

By Ludwig en van Dam|20-12-2017|Categories: Dispute settlement, Forecasting issues, Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , , |

Franchisor convicted under the Acquisition Fraud Act

For the first time, a court has ruled, with reference to the Acquisition Fraud Act, that if a franchisee claims that the franchisor has presented an unsatisfactory prognosis

Agreements Related to the Franchise Agreement

On 31 October 2017, the Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal issued similar judgments for nineteen franchisees (ECLI:NL:GHARL:2017:9453 through ECLI:NL:GHARL:2017:9472).

Column Franchise+ – mr. J. Sterk – “Franchisee does body check better than franchise check”

A gym embarks on a franchise concept that offers “Body Checks” and discounts to (potential) members in collaboration with health insurers.

Seminar Mrs. J. Sterk and M. Munnik – Thursday, November 2, 2017: “Important legal developments for franchisors”

Attorneys Jeroen Sterk and Maaike Munnik of Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten will update you on the status of and developments surrounding the Dutch Franchise Code and the Acquisition Fraude Act.

By Jeroen Sterk|02-11-2017|Categories: Forecasting issues, Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , |
Go to Top