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
Column Franchise + – mr. Th.R. Ludwig: “Towards strict liability”
The Supreme Court recently ruled in a prognosis issue.
Article in Entrance: “Rentals”
“The landlord increased the prices of the property every year, but he hasn't done this for 2 years, maybe he forgets. Can he still claim an overdue amount later?”
No valid appeal to non-compete clause in franchising
On 28 February 2017, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2017:1469, the provisional relief judge of the District Court of Gelderland ruled on whether a franchisee could be bound by a non-compete clause.
Structurally unsound revenue forecasts from the franchisor
On 15 March 2017, the District Court of Limburg ruled in eight similar judgments (including ECLI:NL:RBLIM:2017:2344) on the franchise agreements of various franchisees of the P3 franchise formula.
Franchisee obliged to cooperate with formula change?
On 24 March 2017, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2017:1860, the preliminary relief judge of the Amsterdam District Court once again considered the issue in which Intertoys wishes to convert Bart Smit's stores
Delivery stop by franchisor not allowed
On 9 February 2017, the preliminary relief judge of the District Court of Gelderland, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2017:1372, ruled that a franchisor had not fulfilled its obligation to supply the franchisee