How far does the non-competition clause extend?
The Supreme Court recently issued a judgment regarding a non-competition clause in a franchise relationship.
From a specifically established private company, X supplies automation work to the competitor of the former franchisor. The franchisor has previously purchased X’s business. The question arises to what extent X has violated the non-competition clause in the purchase agreement by selling to the competition. Strictly speaking, the automation activities do not fall under the core activity of the ordered and intended under the non-competition clause. However, the franchisor shows that the activities have been used as a cover, since X is closely involved in the creation of a formula that competes with him. The activities turn out to be specifically aimed at the competitor’s store concept and, moreover, are not supplied to other customers.
Both the District Court and the Court of Appeal come to the conclusion that there is indeed a cover-up and that the non-competition clause should therefore be honoured. X is sentenced to pay very high fines, rising to more than € 800,000 on appeal.
The Supreme Court rules that the Court of Appeal has not ruled on correct grounds and refers the case to another Court to reassess the whole. However, the case shows that constructions used to circumvent the non-compete clause are extremely risky.
A franchisee who has doubts about the interpretation of the non-compete clause would be wise to carefully and carefully consider whether or not the new activities fall under this clause. Coordination with the former franchisor can prevent many problems in this regard. If this does not yield results, a very careful consideration in another way is necessary.
Mr Th.R. Ludwig – Franchise lawyer
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice Would you like to respond? Mail to ludwig@ludwigvandam.nl
Other messages
Column Franchise+ – mr. Th.R. Ludwig: “Delivery stop by franchisor again not allowed”
Once again, the president in preliminary relief proceedings ruled on the question whether a franchisor's supply stop against the franchisee was permitted, with the franchisee paying a substantial
The manager (employee) who becomes a franchisee – fictitious employment?
On 14 December 2016, the subdistrict court judge of the District Court of Noord-Holland, ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2016:11031 (Employee/Espresso Lounge), considered the situation in which an employee
The Supreme Court sets strict requirements for franchise forecasts
A ruling by the Supreme Court on Friday casts a new light on the provision of profit and turnover forecasts to aspiring franchisees.
Infringement of exclusive service area by franchisor in connection with formula change dated February 27, 2017
On 30 January 2017, the provisional relief judge of the District Court of Noord-Holland, ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2017:688 (Intertoys/franchisee), was asked how to deal with the
Forecasts at startup franchise formula
The Amsterdam Court of Appeal ruled on 14 February 2017, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:455 (Tot Straks/franchisee) on the question whether the franchisor had provided an unsatisfactory prognosis and whether the
Mandatory transfer of franchise business to franchisor?
On January 23, 2017, the District Court of Amsterdam, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2017:412 (CoffeeCompany/Dam Spirit BV) rendered a judgment on the question whether a franchisee upon termination of the cooperation