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

The (in)validity of a post-contractual non-competition clause in a franchise agreement: analogy with employment law?

On 5 September 2017, the District Court of Gelderland, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2017:4565, rendered a judgment on, among other things, the question of whether Bruna, as a franchisor, could invoke the prohibition for a

Column Franchise+ – mr. J Sterk: “Court orders fast food chain to extend franchise agreement

The case is set to begin this year. For years, the franchisee has been refusing to sign the new franchise agreement that was offered with renewal, as it would lead to a deterioration of his legal position

By Jeroen Sterk|01-09-2017|Categories: Dispute settlement, Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , |

Not a valid non-compete clause for franchisee

On 18 November 2016, the interim relief judge of the Central Netherlands District Court, ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2016:7754, rendered a judgment in the issue concerning whether the franchisee was held

Franchise & Law No. 5 – Acquisition Fraud and Franchising Act

The Acquisition Fraud Act came into effect on 1 July 2016. This includes amendments to Section 6:194 of the Dutch Civil Code.

By Ludwig en van Dam|10-08-2017|Categories: Dispute settlement, Forecasting issues, Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , , |

Does a franchisee have to accept a new model franchise agreement?

On 31 March 2017, the District Court of Rotterdam, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2017:2457, ruled in interlocutory proceedings on the question whether franchisor Bram Ladage had complied with the franchise agreement with its franchisee.

Mandatory (market-based) purchase prices for franchisees

To what extent can a franchisor change agreements about the (market) purchase prices of the goods that the franchisees are obliged to purchase?

Go to Top