In the judgment of 26 March 2024, ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2024:1035, the Court of Appeal in ‘s-Hertogenbosch annulled a court judgment and ruled that a franchisor was not entitled to rely on a post-competition clause.

A franchisor rents a retail space to a franchisee. The franchisee terminated the lease and franchise agreement. The franchisor in turn rented the retail space from someone else, but the franchisee had also terminated that lease agreement. After the lease and franchise agreement expired, the franchisee continued the business activities under its own name within a walking distance of less than 100 meters. However, the franchise agreement contains a post-competition clause that provides for a prohibition on carrying out competitive activities in an area with a radius of 2 kilometers around the location or any other company of the franchisor.

The geographical description of the post-competition ban implies that it concerns the specific location of the franchisor where the franchisor could establish its business. Now that the location is no longer a location of the franchisor, the franchisor cannot now enforce the non-competition clause against the former franchisee. The court therefore ruled that there was no violation of the non-competition clause.

Article 7:920 paragraph 2 of the Dutch Civil Code stipulates, among other things, that the geographical scope may not be wider than the area within which the franchisee has operated the franchise formula on the basis of the franchise agreement in question. The court seems to be of the opinion that the text of the post-competition clause itself limits the operation of the post-competition clause to only the area where the franchisor is actually active. Because the franchisor is no longer active in the area in question, an appeal to the post-competition clause is also not valid, according to the court.

mr. A.W. Dolphijn
Ludwig & Van Dam lawyers, franchise legal advice.
Do you want to respond? Then email to dolphijn@ludwigvandam.nl

Other messages

Judge: Protect franchisee against supermarket organization (Coop) as lessor

Does the franchisee need legal protection from supermarket franchisor Coop? The District Court of Rotterdam ruled on 9 February 2018, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2018:1151, that this is the case.

Acquisition fraud vs. error in franchise forecasting

Who has to prove that the franchisor's forecast is unsound? In principle, this is the franchisee. If the franchisee invokes the Acquisition Fraud Act, it may be that

Obligation to sell back at the end of the franchise agreement

Franchise agreements sometimes provide that the franchisee is required to sell back purchased assets at the end of the franchise agreement.

Position of franchisees in franchisor restructuring

Franchisees must be adequately and generously informed in advance by the franchisor about the content and consequences of (further) agreements...

Interview Franchise+ – mrs. J. Sterk and AW Dolphijn – “Reversal of burden of proof in forecasts approved by court” – February 2018

The new Acquisition Fraud Act indeed appears to be relevant for the franchise industry, according to this article from Franchise+. Alex Dolphijn of Ludwig & Van Dam assists a franchisee in a

By Ludwig en van Dam|01-02-2018|Categories: Dispute settlement, Forecasting issues, Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , , |
Go to Top