Interim termination (franchise) agreement

On 3 February 2015, the Court of Appeal of ‘s-Hertogenbosch rendered judgment (ECLI:GHSHE:2015:33) in a case that may also be relevant for franchise practice. At first glance, the case is far from it. It concerns a license agreement with regard to the development and production of fiber boards by applying a special adhesive technology. The core of the debate, however, lies in the question of whether the cooperation may also be terminated prematurely if the agreement has been entered into for a definite period of time, in this case 20 years. That is to say, if interim termination has not been agreed, or, as is the case in this case, is limited to specific grounds stated in the agreement itself, which did not arise in that case. Referring to a judgment of the Supreme Court (HR 21 OCTOBER 1988, NJ1990, 439), the court concludes that “that such cooperation cannot, in principle, be terminated prematurely, but that an exception to this can be accepted if it is based on unforeseen, i.e. not discounted in the agreement, circumstances that are not for the account of the terminating party and that are of a serious nature that, according to standards of reasonableness and fairness, the other party cannot expect the agreement to be concluded until the agreed time”. According to the court, this situation arose in this case because there was no longer any interest in the adhesive technology to be developed and the agreement therefore lost its right to exist. However, such a situation can also be translated into franchise relationships. More specifically, the question can be asked to what extent continuation of the franchise agreement can still be required in the event of loss-making operations, the cause of which must be found in unexpected external calamities. The judgment of the Court of Appeal therefore seems to confirm that, in the event of unforeseen circumstances, early termination, even if not agreed, must always be possible in exceptional cases.

Mr J. Sterk – Franchise lawyer

Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice. Do you want to respond? Mail to Sterk@ludwigvandam.nl

Other messages

Agreements Related to the Franchise Agreement

On 31 October 2017, the Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal issued similar judgments for nineteen franchisees (ECLI:NL:GHARL:2017:9453 through ECLI:NL:GHARL:2017:9472).

Column Franchise+ – mr. J. Sterk – “Franchisee does body check better than franchise check”

A gym embarks on a franchise concept that offers “Body Checks” and discounts to (potential) members in collaboration with health insurers.

Seminar Mrs. J. Sterk and M. Munnik – Thursday, November 2, 2017: “Important legal developments for franchisors”

Attorneys Jeroen Sterk and Maaike Munnik of Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten will update you on the status of and developments surrounding the Dutch Franchise Code and the Acquisition Fraude Act.

By Jeroen Sterk|02-11-2017|Categories: Forecasting issues, Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , |

Goodwill at end of franchise agreement

In a case before the Amsterdam Court of Appeal on 26 September 2017, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:3900 (Seal & Go), a franchisee claimed compensation for goodwill (ex Article 7:308 of the Dutch Civil Code) after the

Cost price that is too high as a hidden franchise fee

An interlocutory judgment of the District Court of The Hague dated 30 August 2017, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2017:10597 (Happy Nurse) shows that the court has considered the question whether the

Go to Top