HEMA sentenced to suspend e-commerce contribution to franchisees
HEMA is in conflict with its franchisees about the contribution to e-commerce costs. HEMA believes that the existing scheme from 1997 is outdated. Until a few years ago, the contribution for e-commerce was always determined in close consultation with the franchisees. After that, no agreement was reached on the settlements.
HEMA charges its franchisees a fee for e-commerce activities. HEMA settles these invoices with credit balances of the franchisees. The franchisees opposed this and requested that HEMA be ordered in summary proceedings to prohibit HEMA from taking collection measures with regard to e-commerce invoices. In short, the franchisees have argued that they have been unable to verify the figures on which the invoices are based, that they have indications that HEMA’s calculation is incorrect and that – as happened before – they jointly with HEMA paid the contribution. for e-commerce. Separate proceedings on the merits are also pending before the Amsterdam District Court.
The court rules that it will have to be determined in the proceedings on the merits how the agreements on the contribution to e-commerce should be interpreted. Without anticipating the decision of the court on the merits, the provisional relief judge sees reason to order HEMA to suspend the settlement for the time being. Although it is questionable whether the assertions of the franchisees are correct, this cannot be ruled out by the preliminary relief judge. Moreover, the franchisees have already paid a substantial part of HEMA’s invoices and the court in the main proceedings is expected to pass judgment in the foreseeable future. HEMA is ordered not to take any collection measures for the time being regarding an alleged contribution to the costs of e-commerce. See the judgment of the District Court of Amsterdam of 6 March 2018, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2018:1291.
mr. AW Dolphin – franchise lawyer
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice. Do you want to respond? Go to dolphijn@ludwigvandam.nl .
Other messages
Franchisor liable for franchisee error
On 17 March 2021, the Midden-Nederland District Court ruled, ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2021:1351, ...
Extensive application of the prohibition of competition from the Franchise Act
In a judgment of the Noord-Holland court of 11 February ...
Franchisee competition ban: error in forecasting and transfer of know-how?
In preliminary relief proceedings, a franchisee demands that the franchisor ...
Article De Nationale Franchise Gids: “Non-compete clause: ‘the devil is in the details'” – mr. C. Damen – dated April 2, 2021
In a judgment of 20 January 2021, the Rotterdam court ...
Article Franchise+: “The importance of know-how in the context of a non-compete and non-solicitation clause” – mr. K. Bastiaans – dated March 10, 2021
In its judgment of 24 February 2010, the provisional relief ...
Article De Nationale Franchise Gids: “The Franchise Act: what should I do with it?” – mr. DL van Dam – dated March 9, 2021
It has of course not escaped the attention of most ...