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
When does a franchisor go too far when recruiting franchisees?
The judgment of the Court of Appeal of Arnhem-Leeuwarden on 5 February 2019 dealt with whether the franchisor had acted impermissibly when recruiting the franchisees.
Advisory Board on Regulatory Pressure (ATR) advises State Secretary Keijzer about the Franchise Act
In short, it is first advised to actively inform franchisors and franchisees about this amendment to the law.
Post non-competition ban on services and sales franchise
When a franchise agreement ends, many franchisees encounter a prohibition in the franchise agreement to perform similar work for a period of time thereafter
The concept of the Franchise Act: impact for franchisors and franchisees – dated February 5, 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten believes that if the draft of the Franchise Act actually becomes law, a lot will change for franchisors and franchisees.
Buy franchise business and the laid off sick employee from 7 years ago
The question is whether a Bruna franchisee, when selling the franchise company to Bruna, should have stated that seven years ago an employee had left employment sick.
Court prohibits Domino’s unilateral area reduction when extending franchise agreements – dated January 28, 2019 – mr. RCWL Albers
On January 9, 2019, the District Court of Rotterdam rendered a judgment in a lawsuit initiated by the Association of Domino's Pizza Franchisees and all its members (almost all Domino's franchisees).