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

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.

Fine for franchisor because aspiring franchisee is foreigner

On 5 July 2017, the Council of State, ECLI:NL:RVS:2017:1815, decided whether, in the case of (proposed) cooperation between a franchisor and a prospective franchisee, the franchisor

Article in Entrance: “Company name”

“I came up with a wonderful name for my catering company and incurred the necessary costs for this. Now there is another entrepreneur who is going to use almost the same one. Is that allowed?"

By Alex Dolphijn|01-07-2017|Categories: Dispute settlement, Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , |
Go to Top