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

Recommendations by the franchisor in general terms are permitted – dated March 6, 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin

The boundary between praise in general terms on the one hand and culpable deception and misrepresentation on the other remains a difficult issue.

By Alex Dolphijn|06-03-2020|Categories: Statements & current affairs|Tags: , , , , |

Article De Nationale Franchise Gids – Know-how decisive for scope of application Franchise Act – dated 5 March 2020 – mr. RCWL Albers

It will have escaped the attention of few in the sector that on 10 February 2010 the legislative proposal for the Franchise Act was submitted to the House of Representatives.

Go to Top