Goodwill at end of franchise agreement
In a case before the Amsterdam Court of Appeal on 26 September 2017, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:3900 (Seal & Go), a franchisee claimed goodwill compensation (ex Article 7:308 of the Dutch Civil Code) after the franchisor had terminated the lease, in order to continue the operation of the company itself.
In the first instance, the District Court of Noord-Holland dated 24 December 2015, ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2015:11974, rejected the franchisee’s claim because there was no advantage on the part of the franchisor. The clientele was due to the location and not the entrepreneurial activity. The company was located at Schiphol Airport and it is that location that apparently, according to the court, resulted in the (accumulated) customer base.
The Court of Appeal upheld the District Court’s judgment and added that the mere significant increase in turnover and profit realized by the former franchisee does not provide sufficient concrete leads to conclude that the franchisor has enjoyed an attributable advantage. to the franchisee’s business activities.
mr. AW Dolphijn – Franchise lawyer
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice. Do you want to respond? Go to dolphijn@ludwigvandam.nl .
![232court-min](https://www.ludwigvandam.nl/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/232court-min.jpg)
Other messages
Transfer of franchise rights when renting not self-evident
Transfer of franchise rights when renting not self-evident
Takeover of a (sub)lease agreement upon change of franchisor
Recently, the court determined that transfer of franchise rights
Unexpected visitors on a Sunday? Quickly to the store!
Unexpected visitors on a Sunday? Don't worry, there is always a supermarket or pastry shop nearby
As a franchise, can my business grow faster
As a franchise, can my business grow faster
Creative solution for the division of the Sunday opening
Creative solution for the division of the Sunday opening
Franchisee may not be bound by a non-competition clause
Recently, the court of Utrecht ruled again on the Super de Boer case against one of its (former) franchisees.