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
Which court for a rental and franchise agreement?
Which court is competent to rule on a related rental and franchise agreement?
Interview Franchise+ – mrs. J. Sterk and AW Dolphijn – “Reversal burden of proof in forecasts honored by court”
The new Acquisition Fraud Act indeed appears to be relevant for the franchise industry, according to this article from Franchise+.
Franchisor convicted under the Acquisition Fraud Act
For the first time, a court has ruled, with reference to the Acquisition Fraud Act, that if a franchisee claims that the franchisor has presented an unsatisfactory prognosis
Agreements Related to the Franchise Agreement
On 31 October 2017, the Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal issued similar judgments for nineteen franchisees (ECLI:NL:GHARL:2017:9453 through ECLI:NL:GHARL:2017:9472).
Column Franchise+ – mr. J. Sterk – “Franchisee does body check better than franchise check”
A gym embarks on a franchise concept that offers “Body Checks” and discounts to (potential) members in collaboration with health insurers.
Seminar Mrs. J. Sterk and M. Munnik – Thursday, November 2, 2017: “Important legal developments for franchisors”
Attorneys Jeroen Sterk and Maaike Munnik of Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten will update you on the status of and developments surrounding the Dutch Franchise Code and the Acquisition Fraude Act.