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 .

Other messages

Amsterdam Court of Appeal restricts franchisor’s appeal to non-competition – dated July 6, 2020 – mr. T. Meijer

On 30 June 20202, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal ruled that a franchisor is not entitled to an (unlimited) appeal to a contractual non-competition clause.

Article Franchise+ – “Immediate information obligations of franchisors upon operation of the Franchise Act” – mr. AW Dolphijn – dated June 25, 2020

As soon as the Franchise Act enters into force, this will have an immediate effect on franchise agreements that already exist. The question is whether the information flows are set up optimally from a legal point of view.

By Alex Dolphijn|25-06-2020|Categories: Statements & current affairs|
Go to Top