No formula change, but further development by the franchisor
The District Court of Maastricht ruled on 6 October 2022, ECLI:NL:RBLIM:2022:7655, on whether the franchisor can close a franchisee’s website if the franchisee does not accept a change in the policy. The franchisor also indicates that it will suspend the continued payment of monies collected by customers of the franchisee.
The preliminary relief judge ruled that the franchisor did not act contrary to the franchise agreement by prescribing that from now on only one permanent lead generator may be used. The claim to put the website on which the leads come in online again, so that the lead generation can be continued by another lead generator, is therefore rejected.
In addition, the franchisee claimed an injunction against suspension of the continued payment of monies collected by the franchisee’s customers. The franchisee engaged in marketing activities on the Internet without the necessary consent of the franchisor, had changed control of the franchise business and violated the franchisor’s contractual pre-emption right. The franchisee then argued that the unwanted marketing activities should be discontinued and that the contractual pre-emption right should still be fulfilled. The franchisor had announced that if the franchisee had not complied with the summons, it would not pass on the monies of the franchisee’s customers to the franchisee. The preliminary relief judge rejected the franchisor’s prohibition on suspension. After all, there was no question of any actual suspension (yet).
The preliminary relief judge did not rule that there had been a formula change, but was apparently of the opinion that there was a further development to which the franchisee had to conform. It is conceivable that if the franchisee does not comply with this, suspension of the franchisee’s assets could be permitted.
Ludwig & Van Dam lawyers, franchise legal advice.
Do you want to respond? Then email to ludwig@ludwigvandam.nl
Other messages
Ludwig & Van Dam attorneys summon Sandd and PostNL on behalf of the Sandd franchisees – dated 9 January 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Association of Franchisees of Sandd (VFS) has today summoned Sandd and PostNL before the court in Arnhem. The VFS believes that Sandd and PostNL are letting the franchisees down hard.
Article The National Franchise Guide: “Why joint and several liability, for example, next to private?” – dated 7 January 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
Franchisees are often asked to co-sign the franchise agreement in addition to their franchise, for example. Sometimes franchisees refuse to do so and the franchise agreement is not signed.
Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten assists Sandd franchisees: Franchisees Sandd challenge postal monopoly in court – dated 12 November 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Association of Franchisees of Sandd (VFS) is challenging the decision of State Secretary Mona Keijzer to approve the postal merger between PostNL and Sandd before the court in Rotterdam.
Franchisee trapped by non-compete clause? – dated October 21, 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
The District Court of East Brabant has ruled that a franchisee was still bound by the non-competition clause in the event of premature termination of the franchise agreement.
Supermarket letter – 26
Supermarket Newsletter No. 26
Link franchise agreement and rental agreement uncertain? – dated October 14, 2019 – mr K. Bastiaans
It is no exception within a franchise relationship that the parties agree that the franchise agreement and the rental agreement are inextricably linked.