No obligation to use a rental property as a supermarket
The Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal has made a decision on whether the tenant of a building was obliged to operate a supermarket formula, or whether other retail practices should also be allowed in the building. See Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal on 25 May 2023, ECLI:NL:GHARL:2023:4348.
Marqt had entered into a lease with regard to a building with the aim of operating a supermarket there according to the Marqt formula. Marqt is then taken over by Udea. Udea operates a supermarket opposite the building according to the Ekoplaza formula. For that reason, Marqt no longer wants to operate a Marqt supermarket in the rented property. Marqt then leases the space to a third party, who operates a furniture store there. The property owner demanded that Marqt still operate a supermarket according to the Marqt formula.
The rental agreement stipulates that the rented property is intended to be used for retail. It is also stipulated that the lessor guarantees that Marqt can use the leased property for a shop in accordance with the Marqt formula. The Court of Appeal ruled that by using the word ‘retail trade’, the parties intended to agree on a broader purpose for use than just that for a ‘shop in accordance with the Marqt formula’ or a ‘supermarket’.
The lessor pointed out that it had been agreed that it would pay an investment contribution to Marqt, which it also did, so that Marqt could make the rented property suitable for the establishment of a Marqt supermarket. With this investment contribution, the building has been adapted on behalf of Marqt into a more open, multifunctional retail space, suitable for all kinds of retail, including a supermarket. According to the court, it cannot be concluded from this that it had been agreed that the use of the building would be limited to the operation of a Marqt supermarket only.
The landlord’s claim to use the rented property as a supermarket was rejected by the court.
This judgment once again shows the importance of the formulation of the agreements made in writing.
Ludwig & Van Dam lawyers, franchise legal advice.
Do you want to respond? Then email to dolphijn@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.