On 23 January 2017, the District Court of Amsterdam, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2017:412 (CoffeeCompany/Dam Spirit BV) rendered a judgment on the question whether a franchisee is obliged to return his franchise company upon termination of the cooperation with the franchisor. delivery to the franchisor. 

Before the catering entrepreneur in question entered into cooperation with the franchisor, the catering entrepreneur in question had already rented the catering business space on Dam Square in Amsterdam for some time. A catering permit was also present from the start of the rental. 

A cooperation agreement, called a license agreement, was subsequently concluded between the parties, under which the franchisee obtained the right to operate the catering establishment according to a specific formula of the franchisor. It was included in that agreement that upon termination of this agreement, the franchisor was entitled to continue the business itself at the location where the franchisee worked. After the cooperation has ended, the franchisor demands from the former franchisee to offer it the lease rights to the business space in question, or at least to cooperate in substituting the franchisor as tenant. 

The court considers that there is no question of a termination situation, but that the cooperation has ended by operation of law due to the passage of time. The court also considers it illogical that the franchisee was prepared to offer the lease rights to the franchisor when the cooperation ended. The court therefore rejects the franchisor’s claim to transfer the franchise company to it. 

It follows from this ruling that if the parties wish to make a far-reaching agreement about the transfer of the franchise company at the end of the cooperation, this must be explicitly stated in order to avoid misunderstandings afterwards. 

mr. AW Dolphijn – Franchise lawyer
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice. Do you want to respond? Go to dolphijn@ludwigvandam.nl .

Other messages

Circumvent post non-compete clause in franchising

On 3 April 2018, the Court of Appeal of Arnhem-Leeuwarden, ECLI:NL:GHARL:2018:3128, overturned an interim injunction of the District Court of Gelderland on competitive activities.

Column Franchise+ – “Prohibition of sales via internet platforms in franchise agreement exempt from cartel prohibition”

At the end of last year, Thuisbezorgd.nl incurred the wrath of many meal delivery companies by announcing another rate increase. The standard rate of Thuisbezorgd.nl thus reached a

By Remy Albers|09-04-2018|Categories: Competition, Statements & current affairs|Tags: |

Column Franchise+ – Franchisor acts unlawfully by providing a forecast through a third party

Disputes about forecasts between franchisor and franchisee remain a hot topic in franchising. After the Street-One judgment, it seems that franchisors feel safe

Column Franchise+ – Outsourcing forecasting to an administrative office does not benefit the franchisor

Disputes about forecasts between franchisor and franchisee remain a hot topic in franchising. After the Street-One judgment, it seems that franchisors feel safe

By Maaike Munnik|04-04-2018|Categories: Forecasting issues, Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , |

Outsourcing prognosis to an administrative office does not benefit the franchisor

Disputes about forecasts between franchisor and franchisee remain a hot topic in franchising.

Contribution Mr. AW Dolphijn in Contracting magazine 2018, no. 1: “The unilateral amendment clause in the franchise agreement.”

A contribution by mr Dolphijn has been published in the magazine Contracteren entitled: “The unilateral amendment clause in the Franchise Agreement”.

Go to Top