No non-compete violation by franchisee – February 9, 2016 – mr. AW Dolphin
Has a former franchisee violated the non-compete clause by offering services outside an agreed territory? The court thinks not. The non-competition prohibition only applies to own brokerage activities and not to the presentation of brokerage activities of third parties. See the judgment of the interim relief judge of the Central Netherlands District Court of 13 January 2016, ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2016:191 (123Wonen/ex-franchisee).
Franchisor and franchisee had concluded a franchise agreement with regard to a formula for intermediation in, among other things, renting and renting out accommodation. The parties had agreed that after the termination of the franchise agreement, the franchisee was not allowed to carry out brokerage activities with regard to the rental of homes (with the exception of 20 permitted properties) outside a certain geographical area. However, the former franchisee’s website lists more than the 20 excluded objects from outside the agreed upon area. Is there now a violation of the post non-compete clause?
The preliminary relief judge of the district court rules that the post non-competition prohibition only concerns brokerage activities and that the parties have not made any agreements about offering homes in which other estate agents mediate. Now that this has not been sufficiently contested by the former franchisor and further evidence in the context of summary proceedings is limited.
This judgment shows once again that the formulation of a non-competition clause must be done with great care.
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
Bankrupt because the franchisor refused to sell the franchise company – dated January 28, 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The District Court of The Hague has dealt with a request from a franchisor to declare a franchisee bankrupt.
Prescribed shop fitting – dated January 28, 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Midden-Nederland District Court has ruled on whether a franchisee is obliged to carry the shop fittings prescribed by the franchisor.
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.