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
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