Not a valid non-compete clause for franchisee
On 18 November 2016, the preliminary relief judge of the Central Netherlands District Court, ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2016:7754, rendered a judgment in the matter concerning whether the franchisee was bound by the non-compete obligation from the franchise agreement.
After the franchise agreement was concluded, the franchisee invoked the nullification of the franchise agreement, because she stated that she had erred at the time the franchise agreement was concluded. Based on statements from the franchisor, the franchisee assumed that the formula in question was an exclusive concept. This mainly concerned the alleged exclusivity of the slimming equipment used within the formula.
However, after the start of the collaboration, it turned out that another franchise formula uses the same slimming equipment. The judge also ruled that the franchise formula actually consisted of no more than the purchase of the slimming equipment and a WhatsApp group with the other franchisees. According to the franchisor, the added value of the formula lies in the transfer of knowledge, for example by means of a handbook and basic training. The preliminary relief judge believes that it seems plausible for the time being that the nullification of the franchise agreement will be upheld.
The franchisor demanded payment of sums of money for violating the non-compete clause. However, if the franchise agreement remains null and void, the non-compete clause is deemed never to have been concluded. The franchisor’s claim is therefore rejected.
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
HEMA sentenced to suspend e-commerce contribution to franchisees
HEMA is in conflict with its franchisees about the contribution to e-commerce costs. HEMA believes that the existing scheme from 1997 is outdated.
Error or deception in the conclusion of the franchise agreement
A franchisee who regrets after entering into a franchise agreement may believe that before or at the conclusion of the franchise agreement by the franchisor ...
Supermarket letter – 21
Judge: Protect franchisee against supermarket organization (Coop) as lessor
The supplier prescribed by the franchisor is not performing? What now?
The Court of Appeal of 's-Hertogenbosch ruled on 20 February 2018, ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2018:727, on the question of who must prove that the franchisee was misled when entering into the
Judge: Protect franchisee against supermarket organization (Coop) as lessor
Does the franchisee need legal protection from supermarket franchisor Coop? The District Court of Rotterdam ruled on 9 February 2018, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2018:1151, that this is the case.
Acquisition fraud vs. error in franchise forecasting
Who has to prove that the franchisor's forecast is unsound? In principle, this is the franchisee. If the franchisee invokes the Acquisition Fraud Act, it may be that