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

Alex Dolphijn in the Financial Dagblad about the judgment of the Supreme Court regarding Street-One

Franchisors more liable for incorrect forecasts Franchisees can now more easily hold their parent organization liable for incorrect profit and turnover forecasts.

Column Franchise+ – mr. Th.R. Ludwig: “Delivery stop by franchisor again not allowed”

Once again, the president in preliminary relief proceedings ruled on the question whether a franchisor's supply stop against the franchisee was permitted, with the franchisee paying a substantial

The manager (employee) who becomes a franchisee – fictitious employment?

On 14 December 2016, the subdistrict court judge of the District Court of Noord-Holland, ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2016:11031 (Employee/Espresso Lounge), considered the situation in which an employee

The Supreme Court sets strict requirements for franchise forecasts

A ruling by the Supreme Court on Friday casts a new light on the provision of profit and turnover forecasts to aspiring franchisees.

By Ludwig en van Dam|28-02-2017|Categories: Dispute settlement, Forecasting issues, Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , , |
Go to Top