Linking rental agreement and franchise agreement: new legislation
The new tenancy law is expected to come into force in a few months’ time. This has consequences for the link between the duration of the rental agreement and that of the franchise agreement.
In a contribution to this newsletter from a few months ago, attention has already been paid to the link between the duration of the (sub)lease agreement between franchisor and franchisee and that of the franchise agreement concluded between the parties. Such a link constitutes a deviation from the mandatory rental regime from the Civil Code. Approval from the subdistrict court is required for such a deviation.
Under the current regulations, the court will only approve a deviating clause based on the special circumstances of the case. This is a fairly general criterion that is broadly interpreted in practice. As a result, under the current regulations, the subdistrict court usually grants its approval for a clause in which the duration of the sublease agreement is linked to that of the franchise agreement.
The new tenancy law maintains the system of compulsory tenancy protection for the tenant for a period of five + five years. Approval from the subdistrict court remains necessary.
However, a new criterion is used on the basis of the new regulations. Approval will only be given if the deviating clause does not substantially affect the rent protection that the tenant (franchisee) has, or if the social position of the tenant compared to that of the lessor is such that he does not reasonably need the rent protection. If one of these conditions is not met, the approval by the subdistrict court judge will not be granted. Compared to the current regulations, approval by the subdistrict court is expected to be refused more often. After the entry into force of the new regulations, practical experience will first have to be gained in order to ultimately be able to assess in which cases approval will be granted for linking the duration of the (sub)lease agreement to that of the franchise agreement.
In conclusion, it must be stated that the possibilities to link the duration of the (sub)lease agreement and that of the franchise agreement will probably be limited under the new regulations
Ludwig & Van Dam franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice
Other messages
Which court for a rental and franchise agreement?
Which court is competent to rule on a related rental and franchise agreement?
Interview Franchise+ – mrs. J. Sterk and AW Dolphijn – “Reversal burden of proof in forecasts honored by court”
The new Acquisition Fraud Act indeed appears to be relevant for the franchise industry, according to this article from Franchise+.
Franchisor convicted under the Acquisition Fraud Act
For the first time, a court has ruled, with reference to the Acquisition Fraud Act, that if a franchisee claims that the franchisor has presented an unsatisfactory prognosis
Agreements Related to the Franchise Agreement
On 31 October 2017, the Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal issued similar judgments for nineteen franchisees (ECLI:NL:GHARL:2017:9453 through ECLI:NL:GHARL:2017:9472).
Column Franchise+ – mr. J. Sterk – “Franchisee does body check better than franchise check”
A gym embarks on a franchise concept that offers “Body Checks” and discounts to (potential) members in collaboration with health insurers.
Seminar Mrs. J. Sterk and M. Munnik – Thursday, November 2, 2017: “Important legal developments for franchisors”
Attorneys Jeroen Sterk and Maaike Munnik of Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten will update you on the status of and developments surrounding the Dutch Franchise Code and the Acquisition Fraude Act.