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
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