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
Alex Dolphijn in the Financial Dagblad about the judgment of the Supreme Court regarding Street-One
Franchisors more liable for incorrect forecasts Franchisees can now more easily hold their parent organization liable for incorrect profit and turnover forecasts.
Supermarket letter – 17
Supreme Court: More quickly liable for forecasts
Article in Entrance: “Small print”
“When I do business with a supplier, I never read the fine print. Recently I noticed that there are all kinds of things in it that I actually do not agree with.
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.