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
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
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.
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?