Jurisdiction of the subdistrict court in cases of misrepresentation
Court of Arnhem
The assessment of disputes about a (sub)lease agreement is assigned by law to the specialist sub-district court, while disputes about a franchise agreement are, in principle, assessed by the ‘normal’ (civil) court. In franchising, it is very common that, in addition to the conclusion of a franchise agreement, a (sub)lease agreement is also concluded between the franchisor and the franchisee. Which court has jurisdiction if the franchisee invokes the voidability of both agreements?
As discussed earlier on this website, the answer to this question seems to be easily answered on the basis of the law. However, it appears from the various case law that can be found on this subject that this apparent simplicity is apparently apparent and that different courts look at this matter in different ways.
The Court of Arnhem recently issued a ruling that appears to be based directly on the law and therefore promotes legal certainty. The case, briefly summarized, is as follows. In the ‘normal’ civil court, the franchisor cs not only claim a franchise fee from a franchisee, but also rent payments under a (sub)lease agreement. The franchisee defends himself by stating that he has erred, for which reason, in his view, both the franchise agreement and the rental agreement should be nullified. The court is of the opinion that, now that there is a concurrence of claims that also relate to a (sub)lease agreement, a subdistrict court judge should assess the case. Referral will follow.
Mr JH Kolenbrander – Franchise lawyer
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice Would you like to respond? Mail to coalbrander@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