Infringement of franchisee’s exclusivity rights: franchisor liable – October 18, 2016 – mr. DL van Dam
Franchise agreements often contain exclusivity provisions that give franchisees the exclusive right to operate a business in a specific area in accordance with the franchise formula of the franchisor. Such provisions prohibit the franchisor from permitting others to use the franchise formula in the exclusive territory.
Recently, in preliminary relief proceedings (see District Court of Gelderland, 9 September 2016, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2016:5311), litigation was brought about the consequences of a violation of the franchisee’s exclusivity right. The franchisor had entered into a franchise agreement with a franchisee (hereinafter referred to as franchisee A) who was entitled on that basis to apply the formula within a radius of 5 kilometers around the franchisee’s place of business for the duration of the franchise agreement.
Despite the agreed exclusivity, the franchisor had nevertheless concluded a franchise agreement with another franchisee (hereinafter: franchisee B) who was located at a distance of 4.65 kilometers as the crow flies. After franchisee A confronted the franchisor about this, the franchisor wrongly stated that the franchise agreement with franchisee B was concluded before the franchise agreement with franchisee A and that therefore franchisee B would have the oldest right.
However, the court in preliminary relief proceedings did not follow the franchisor’s argument and ruled that the franchisor was obliged to comply with the exclusivity provision of franchisee A. It was established in the proceedings that A had concluded a franchise agreement before B. However, according to the judge in preliminary relief proceedings, it is not relevant which agreement was entered into first, since there is no hierarchy under the law of obligations with regard to the rights that the two franchisees can derive from the franchise agreement against the franchisor. The franchisor is therefore obliged towards both franchisees to comply with the franchise agreement.
The conclusion that the judge in preliminary relief proceedings then draws from this is that the franchisor must cease the performance of the franchise agreement with franchisee B within two days. According to the judge in preliminary relief proceedings, the fact that the franchisor may become liable to pay damages to franchisee B as a result is a circumstance that must be borne by the franchisor.
Of course, a franchisor cannot grant the same right twice in respect of the same territory. He cannot grant the exclusivity right that has already been granted again. The franchisee with the oldest exclusivity right can demand successful performance, but the second franchisee will be able to claim (substantial) compensation.
The Dutch Franchise Code (NFC) requires that the area of exclusivity is inviolable. A franchisee can therefore also make use of this in the future.
mr. DL van Dam – Franchise lawyer
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice. Do you want to respond? Go to vandam@ludwigvandam.nl
Other messages
Damage estimate after wrongful termination of the franchise agreement by the franchisor
In a judgment of the Supreme Court of 15 September 2017, ECLI:NL:HR:2017:2372 (Franchisee/Coop), it was discussed that supermarket organization Coop had not complied with agreements, as a result of which the franchisee
Franchisor is obliged to extend the franchise agreement
On 6 September 2017, the Rotterdam District Court ruled, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2017:6975 (Misty / Bram Ladage), that the refusal to extend a franchise agreement by a franchisor
The (in)validity of a post-contractual non-competition clause in a franchise agreement: analogy with employment law?
On 5 September 2017, the District Court of Gelderland, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2017:4565, rendered a judgment on, among other things, the question of whether Bruna, as a franchisor, could invoke the prohibition for a
Column Franchise+ – mr. J Sterk: “Court orders fast food chain to extend franchise agreement
The case is set to begin this year. For years, the franchisee has been refusing to sign the new franchise agreement that was offered with renewal, as it would lead to a deterioration of his legal position
Not a valid non-compete clause for franchisee
On 18 November 2016, the interim relief judge of the Central Netherlands District Court, ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2016:7754, rendered a judgment in the issue concerning whether the franchisee was held
Franchise & Law No. 5 – Acquisition Fraud and Franchising Act
The Acquisition Fraud Act came into effect on 1 July 2016. This includes amendments to Section 6:194 of the Dutch Civil Code.