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 HEMA believes that the existing scheme from 1997 is outdated.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
Judge: Protect franchisee against supermarket organization (Coop) as lessor
Does the franchisee need legal protection from supermarket franchisor Coop? The District Court of Rotterdam ruled on 9 February 2018, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2018:1151, that this is the case.
Acquisition fraud vs. error in franchise forecasting
Who has to prove that the franchisor's forecast is unsound? In principle, this is the franchisee. If the franchisee invokes the Acquisition Fraud Act, it may be that
Obligation to sell back at the end of the franchise agreement
Franchise agreements sometimes provide that the franchisee is required to sell back purchased assets at the end of the franchise agreement.
Supermarket letter – 20
Uncertain legal position of Emté franchisees
Position of franchisees in franchisor restructuring
Franchisees must be adequately and generously informed in advance by the franchisor about the content and consequences of (further) agreements...
Interview Franchise+ – mrs. J. Sterk and AW Dolphijn – “Reversal of burden of proof in forecasts approved by court” – February 2018
The new Acquisition Fraud Act indeed appears to be relevant for the franchise industry, according to this article from Franchise+. Alex Dolphijn of Ludwig & Van Dam assists a franchisee in a