Non-compete clause on the sale of a franchise business
How strict should a non-compete clause be when selling a franchise business to the franchisor? That question was raised in a dispute in which the District Court of Gelderland ruled on 6 September 2017, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2017:68800.
It can be concluded from the published ruling that a franchisee sold the Douglas company back to franchisor Douglas at some point. Apparently part of that sale was that the former franchisee could continue to operate a business at the same address, but that no business could be run there to sell “perfumery products” to consumers.
It also seems that the former franchisee in question has joined another franchise organization that developed the franchise formula for the purpose of operating a beauty salon. After hearing various witnesses, the court considers that, after the sale of the company to Douglas, products were only sold from the business premises to people who have undergone a treatment in the beauty salon and who are (therefore) in the customer base, because there are occasionally products were sold without also undergoing a beauty treatment or there was registration in the customer base or an exceptional situation was involved. The sale of the products was thus subject to significant restrictions, with the emphasis of the exploitation being on the beauty treatments and not on the sale of products. Furthermore, it has not yet emerged that there is any question of the sale of the prohibited “perfumery products”. The products that were sold also included bracelets and wallets. The relationship between the beauty treatment and the products offered for sale should be seen in a broad sense and, in addition to perfume, also included some make-up products, etc., which customers could use during and after the treatment in the beauty salon. The court therefore rules that the non-compete clause has not been violated.
It sometimes proves difficult to describe exactly in a non-compete clause which activities can and cannot be regarded as competitive. A franchisee who wants to switch to a different formula, which could somewhat resemble the formula that is currently being operated, would do well to open up his cards in advance.
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
Franchise Act will take effect on January 1, 2021 – mr. AW Dolphijn – dated December 3, 2020
The Franchise Act was already adopted on July 1, 2020, but it has now also been established by Royal Decree that the Franchise Act will enter into force on January 1, 2021.
Supermarket newsletter -29-
Supermarket newsletter -29-
Article Franchiseplus: “Divide the pain” – mr. Th.R. Ludwig – dated December 1, 2020
The corona crisis has brought many franchisors and franchisees into ...
Article De Nationale Franchise Gids: “Settlement problems with franchisee who is a general partnership” – mr. JAJ Devilee – dated November 30, 2020
In a recent dispute, two ex-spouses faced each other in an appeal procedure regarding the question whether the ex-wife forfeited penalty payments against the private company.
Article Franchise+ – “Recipient’s liability in a franchise context, what exactly is that about?” – mr. K. Bastiaans – dated November 24, 2020
The phenomenon of hirer's liability means that a third party can be held liable for the debts of another under certain conditions.
Franchisor liable for errors made by a franchisee? – mr. AW Dolphijn – dated November 23, 2020
A franchise organization asked the court to declare that the franchisor is not liable if a franchisee has made a serious mistake with a customer.