Franchise agreements more than once include a non-compete clause with respect to the period after the franchise agreement has been terminated. This period is usually one year after the contract has been terminated and the franchisee concerned must, in short, refrain from activities that are competitive with the activities of the franchise organization during that period. As discussed in this section, for example, such non-compete clauses must comply with various rules. For example, the non-compete clause must fit into the competition law regime in which the franchise organization finds itself, partly depending on its market share.

Furthermore, the non-compete clause must pass the civil law reasonableness test. Each of those topics can fill several contributions like this one. This contribution draws attention to the fact that non-compete clauses must at all times be formulated with the utmost care and that when formulating a non-compete clause, the franchisor must also carefully envision what is intended, in particular which activities exactly during the period after contract termination should be prohibited. Recent case law once again shows that the court interprets a non-compete clause, which incidentally derives from employment law practice, extremely restrictively and, when assessing it, analyzes the clause in a grammatical manner. In general, it is therefore not sufficient to “explain” a non-compete clause, to act “in the spirit” of the provisions of the non-compete clause or the like. If a non-competition clause is to have the intended effect, it will have to be literally grammatically and linguistically determined what is intended by the clause. It is therefore important to make sure of this in advance, in order to avoid unpleasant surprises afterwards.

Ludwig & Van Dam franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice

Other messages

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

Go to Top