No right to extension of franchise agreement – July 6, 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
May a franchisor refuse to renew the franchise agreement
if the franchisee does not agree to amended terms and conditions of a
new franchise agreement to be concluded? The District Court of Limburg ruled in
a judgment in summary proceedings of 29 May 2020, ECLI:NL:RBLIM:2020:3860, which in
the case presented, the franchisor was allowed to part with the
franchisee.
The franchisee took the position that the franchisor
acts unlawfully or misuses its authority and
dominant position, by imposing unreasonable conditions for renewal
and by refusing to further negotiate renewal on a reasonable basis
terms or give them more time to sell. If the
franchisee would be forced to cease operation, there would be
enormous damage.
The franchisor had always taken the initiative to change the existing
franchise agreements. She pointed out that
request for extension had to be made no later than six months before its expiry
be submitted and how it should be done. Franchisee has it
never requested such an extension on its own initiative and in a timely manner.
The franchisee had changed positions over time.
Initially they did not want to extend, then they did, but not on
conditions according to the new agreement, then they wanted the
selling branches.
The franchisee is ordered to terminate the use of
the franchise formula under penalty of a penalty.
It strongly depends on the situation whether and how
franchise agreement is legally terminated and how the
negotiations have to be qualified, who does this (on each occasion).
takes the initiative and what the position of the parties is.
mr. AW Dolphijn – franchise lawyer
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice. Want
you 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.