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 .
Other messages
Error in prognosis dealer agreement (or franchise agreement)
On November 11, 2014, the subdistrict court in The Hague ruled on whether an appeal to error in entering into a rental and dealer agreement was successful
Eviction of the franchisee from the leased property in preliminary relief proceedings
Eviction of the franchisee from the leased property in preliminary relief proceedings
Verdict of unsound prognosis Albert Heijn
Verdict of unsound prognosis Albert Heijn
mr. AW Dolphijn: Incorrect prognosis from Albert Heijn to exC1000 franchisee
mr. AW Dolphijn: Incorrect prognosis from Albert Heijn to exC1000 franchisee
NFV course for franchisees by mr. Th.R. Ludwig
NFV course for franchisees by mr. Th.R. Ludwig
Incorrect prognosis from Albert Heijn to ex-C1000 franchisee
On December 3, 2014, the District Court of the Northern Netherlands ruled on a dispute in which the attorneys of the Supermarkets section of Ludwig & Van Dam assisted a former C1000 entrepreneur