Link rental agreement and franchise agreement

Mr MSJ Steenhuis – Franchise lawyer 

In franchise relations, the franchisor regularly makes business space available to the franchisee where the franchise establishment is operated. This is often done by means of a separate (sub)lease agreement. In view of the preservation and value of a franchise organization’s network, it is often in a franchisor’s interest that, at the end of the franchise agreement, the business premises leased by the franchisee are returned to the franchisor so that they can be used by a third party. successive franchisee can be (sub)let. It is then important that the link between the duration of the (sub)lease agreement and that of the franchise agreement is realized in a legally correct manner. 

If there is a question of renting business premises, the so-called mandatory regime of article 7A:1624 and further Civil Code (BW) applies. Mandatory law means that the parties cannot deviate from the provisions as included in the Dutch Civil Code. The rental regime primarily protects the tenant’s interests in order to provide him with certainty that his business can be operated at the same location for a certain period of time.
If it is stipulated in a (sub)lease agreement that it ends as soon as the franchise agreement ends, for whatever reason, this deviates from the mandatory provisions of law. Such a clause in the rental agreement is therefore in principle null and void and, in the event of a dispute, there is a chance that a court will set this clause aside and hold that the (sub)lease agreement will continue regardless of the end of the franchise agreement.

If the lessor has nevertheless included one of the mandatory provisions of the Dutch Civil Code in a rental agreement that deviates from it, the lessor requires approval from the District Court, Cantonal Division. In that case, a petition must be submitted to the court, subdistrict department, of the place where the business premises are located. Furthermore, the franchisee / (sub) tenant must agree to such a request. Although there are also known exceptions, the court often grants its permission to such a deviating clause. It is important here that, on the basis of the franchise agreement concluded between the parties, this franchisor does not have too much freedom to terminate the franchise agreement, which could harm the interests of the franchisee / (sub) tenant. 

Mr MSJ Steenhuis is a lawyer in Rotterdam. The law firm Ludwig & Van Dam is specialized in franchising. 

Ludwig & Van Dam franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice

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.

By Ludwig en van Dam|28-02-2017|Categories: Dispute settlement, Forecasting issues, Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , , |

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

By Alex Dolphijn|27-02-2017|Categories: Dispute settlement, Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , |

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

Go to Top