Jurisdiction of the subdistrict court judge in cases of miscarriage (II)
Court of Roermond
As indicated earlier on this website, different judges judge in different ways whether they are competent to take cognizance of a dispute in which both forecasting issues and rent play a role. Recently, the Court of Arnhem issued a judgment that is relevant, because the law seems to have been applied correctly. For the sake of brevity, I refer to my earlier article “Jurisdiction of the subdistrict court judge in cases of error”.
Recently, the court of Roermond, subdistrict sector, issued a similar ruling. The case in this matter is, briefly summarized, as follows. A franchisee has been provided with forecasts by his franchisor, which – as it turns out later – are not based on any research. Turnover lags significantly behind forecasts and the franchisee has to terminate operations prematurely due to lagging turnover. The franchisee starts proceedings and claims before the subdistrict court judge (among other things) annulment of the franchise agreement and the sublease agreement, including compensation. The franchisor defends himself by stating that the subdistrict court is not competent to take cognizance of this dispute, but that the ‘normal’ court must deal with this issue, because the rental element is only of minor importance.
However, the subdistrict court in Roermond is of the opinion that, because there is a lease element, the other claims are, as it were, ‘drawn along’ in its circle of jurisdiction. The subdistrict court is therefore indeed competent, despite the fact that there is also a substantial claim for compensation on the part of the franchisee.
The advantage of litigating before the subdistrict court is that the court fees are, in principle, lower than in the Civil sector. In general, litigation is also generally low-threshold, even by non-attorneys, which in certain cases can also be pleasant for a litigant. In short, the aforementioned development can be called favorable.
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
Error or deception in the conclusion of the franchise agreement
A franchisee who regrets after entering into a franchise agreement may believe that before or at the conclusion of the franchise agreement by the franchisor ...
Supermarket letter – 21
Judge: Protect franchisee against supermarket organization (Coop) as lessor
The supplier prescribed by the franchisor is not performing? What now?
The Court of Appeal of 's-Hertogenbosch ruled on 20 February 2018, ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2018:727, on the question of who must prove that the franchisee was misled when entering into the
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.