How is the (sub)lease agreement concluded?
As is well known, tenancy law is largely subject to (semi) mandatory law. This means that the landlord and (sub)tenant are bound by the system of the law with regard to numerous mutual rights and obligations. However, does this also mean that a rental agreement has only been concluded when there is a signed rental agreement?
This question has recently come up in court. The parties in question signed a letter of intent with regard to the relevant space, the applicable lease term, the date of commencement of the lease and the level of delivery to be offered by the lessor. The letter of intent has also been signed as “tenant” and “landlord”.
When the parties have reached agreement about the rental conditions in this way, this means that a rental agreement has indeed already been concluded. A signed agreement, with accompanying general terms and conditions, is therefore not necessary for this. The fact that the said letter of intent qualifies as a ‘rental declaration’ does not matter for the presence or absence of a fully-fledged tenancy agreement.
Incidentally, it is good to realize that there is also a “sub” tenancy agreement when the (sub) tenant actually uses the rented property, as made available by the landlord. It does not matter whether there is any form of written agreement. A rental agreement can already have been concluded through the conduct of the parties. This often occurs in franchise agreements where business space is simply made available to the franchisee/subtenant. In many cases, there is not a formal, written, (sub)lease agreement. Nevertheless, it does indeed exist between the parties. The same can be said for a franchise agreement. If this has not been concluded, but the parties do behave in accordance with it and if they continuously observe all rights and obligations, as is known between each other, then there is indeed a fully-fledged franchise agreement.
It should be clear that the franchisor and franchisee would be wise to properly record both the franchise agreement and the (sub)lease agreement, with associated general terms and conditions, before getting started. This prevents unnecessary interpretations and possibly even problems during the ride or afterwards.
Ludwig & Van Dam franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice
Other messages
Bankrupt because the franchisor refused to sell the franchise company – dated January 28, 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The District Court of The Hague has dealt with a request from a franchisor to declare a franchisee bankrupt.
Prescribed shop fitting – dated January 28, 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Midden-Nederland District Court has ruled on whether a franchisee is obliged to carry the shop fittings prescribed by the franchisor.
Ludwig & Van Dam attorneys summon Sandd and PostNL on behalf of the Sandd franchisees – dated 9 January 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Association of Franchisees of Sandd (VFS) has today summoned Sandd and PostNL before the court in Arnhem. The VFS believes that Sandd and PostNL are letting the franchisees down hard.
Article The National Franchise Guide: “Why joint and several liability, for example, next to private?” – dated 7 January 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
Franchisees are often asked to co-sign the franchise agreement in addition to their franchise, for example. Sometimes franchisees refuse to do so and the franchise agreement is not signed.
Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten assists Sandd franchisees: Franchisees Sandd challenge postal monopoly in court – dated 12 November 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Association of Franchisees of Sandd (VFS) is challenging the decision of State Secretary Mona Keijzer to approve the postal merger between PostNL and Sandd before the court in Rotterdam.
Franchisee trapped by non-compete clause? – dated October 21, 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
The District Court of East Brabant has ruled that a franchisee was still bound by the non-competition clause in the event of premature termination of the franchise agreement.