Merged franchisor competes with proprietary franchisees

If a franchise organization is taken over, the intention may be that it is phased out in order to be integrated into the acquiring party. The question then is how to deal if potential customers flow from the franchisees of the acquired franchise organization to the new organization. The Midden-Nederland District Court ruled on such a matter on 29 July 2022, ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2022:3148.

Funeral organization Yarden has been taken over by competitor Dela. Yarden’s franchise organization and formula is being phased out to be integrated into Dela. Yarden’s customer contact center and phone number are at some point operated and handled by Dela. The services of Dela are also promoted in Yarden’s social media. As a result, Yarden’s franchisees suffer damage. The franchisees argue that Yarden competes with its own franchisees by referring to its (new) group company Dela.

Yarden stated that these are incidental errors, that effective measures have now been taken and that compensation is offered for the errors. The franchisees state that the errors and referrals continue. Furthermore, Yarden states that it cannot do much about the errors, but that it would be due to other organizations within its group, such as Yarden Uitvaarten BV

The court agrees with the franchisees and believes that the errors are not incidental, and that Yarden, as a franchisor, cannot hide behind the actions of affiliates. The court orders Yarden, as the franchisor, to cease referrals to Dela, under penalty of a penalty.

This judgment shows that the process of changing a franchise formula requires due diligence, which was lacking in this case.

mr. A.W. Dolphijn
Ludwig & Van Dam lawyers, franchise legal advice.
Do you want to respond? Then email to dolphijn@ludwigvandam.nl

Other messages

Alex Dolphijn of Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten will present “Onderneem ‘t!” on April 19, 2018 at the franchise fair. a seminar on: “Improving the legal position of franchisees? About trends and developments in legislation and regulations.”

For more information click on the link below.

Duty of care franchisor in the pre-contractual phase

The District Court of Limburg ruled on 6 April 2017, ECLI:NL:RBLIM:2016:2843, that the franchisor has a duty of care towards the prospective franchisee in the pre-contractual phase.

Franchisee avoids joint and several liability in private

In a judgment of 28 March 2018, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2018:2913, the District Court of Rotterdam ruled on the meaning of the clause in the franchise agreement stipulating that

Incorrect prognosis due to lack of location research

The District Court of The Hague ruled on 21 March 2018, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2018:3348, that a franchisor's forecast was unsound, as a result of which the franchisee had erred and the franchisor

Column Franchise+ – “Disputes about franchise fees”

Lately, it has also hit the biggest franchise organizations in the Netherlands. At the formulas of Albert Heijn, Hema, Etos, Bruna and Olympia, for example, there was and will be a lot

By Alex Dolphijn|09-04-2018|Categories: Dispute settlement, Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , |
Go to Top