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
Transfer customer data to franchisor
In its judgment of 10 January 2017, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:68 (OnlineAccountants.nl), the Amsterdam Court ruled, among other things, on the question of how customer data should be transferred.
Franchise Closing Sale – Who Gets the Sale Proceeds?
The judgment of the District Court of the Northern Netherlands dated 12 October 2016, ECLI:NL:RBNNE:2016:5061 (Administrator/Expert Group and Rabobank), focused on the question whether the franchisor, together with the bank,
Column Franchise+ – mr. Th.R. Ludwig: “Judge: franchisor’s duty of care comparable to that of a bank”
Various judgments in 2016 made it clear how high the standard of care for a franchisor towards its franchisees is.
Use of the internet and social media: court expands options for franchisees
In principle, the franchisee may not be prohibited from having its own website in order to also or even exclusively sell its products or services via the Internet.
Article in Entrance: “Plan damage”
“Because the municipality undertakes and renovates all sorts of things in the vicinity of my business, I have a disadvantage and I suffer damage. Can I tell those stories?"
Article in Entrance: “Rules of Fragrance”
“I am bothered by the smell that the adjacent catering business produces. Can I do something about this?"