Late notification that no franchise agreement will be concluded
On 11 April 2017, the Court of Appeal of Amsterdam-Leeuwarden, EQLI:NL:GHARL:2017:3104, not only assessed the question of whether the termination of negotiations on a franchise agreement to be concluded was unlawful, but also whether the franchisor was sufficiently has broken down.
In the first instance, the District Court of Gelderland ruled on 6 May 2015, EQLI:NL:RBGEL:2015:4708, that it was clear in advance to the aspiring franchisee that 9 steps would have to be completed in order to eventually become a franchisee. See my earlier comment on that statement here.
While going through the necessary steps, the shares in the franchisor are taken over by another party. The new policy is that no new franchisees will be recruited. Going through the next steps to reach a franchise agreement is therefore terminated by the franchisor. The court ruled in favor of the franchisor. The Court of Appeal follows that view of the District Court.
However, the court ruled that the subject of the dispute is not only the termination of the franchise agreement negotiations, but that other conduct during the negotiations could also be unlawful. The franchisee’s contention is that the franchisor must have known shortly after acquiring its stock that there was a new policy not to hire any more new franchisees. Nevertheless, the aspiring franchisee would only be made clear to the aspiring franchisee after a considerable period of time that it would not come to a franchise agreement. According to the court, the aspiring franchisee has been kept on the line for too long, which is contrary to social decency. The Court of Appeal refers the case to a damage assessment procedure to determine the extent of the damage.
This ruling shows that although breaking off negotiations may be justified, the way in which this breaking off is implemented may be contrary to social decency.
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice. Do you want to respond? Go to dolphijn@ludwigvandam.nl .
Other messages
Article The National Franchise Guide: “Why joint and several liability, for example, next to private?” – dated 7 January 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
Franchisees are often asked to co-sign the franchise agreement in addition to their franchise, for example. Sometimes franchisees refuse to do so and the franchise agreement is not signed.
Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten assists Sandd franchisees: Franchisees Sandd challenge postal monopoly in court – dated 12 November 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Association of Franchisees of Sandd (VFS) is challenging the decision of State Secretary Mona Keijzer to approve the postal merger between PostNL and Sandd before the court in Rotterdam.
Franchisee trapped by non-compete clause? – dated October 21, 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
The District Court of East Brabant has ruled that a franchisee was still bound by the non-competition clause in the event of premature termination of the franchise agreement.
Supermarket letter – 26
Supermarket Newsletter No. 26
Link franchise agreement and rental agreement uncertain? – dated October 14, 2019 – mr K. Bastiaans
It is no exception within a franchise relationship that the parties agree that the franchise agreement and the rental agreement are inextricably linked.
Termination of franchise agreement in case of changes in leased retail space – September 27, 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
Termination of a franchise agreement in light of a substantial change in the leased retail space.