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
Infringement of exclusive service area by franchisor in connection with formula change dated February 27, 2017
On 30 January 2017, the provisional relief judge of the District Court of Noord-Holland, ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2017:688 (Intertoys/franchisee), was asked how to deal with the
Forecasts at startup franchise formula
The Amsterdam Court of Appeal ruled on 14 February 2017, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:455 (Tot Straks/franchisee) on the question whether the franchisor had provided an unsatisfactory prognosis and whether the
Mandatory transfer of franchise business to franchisor?
On January 23, 2017, the District Court of Amsterdam, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2017:412 (CoffeeCompany/Dam Spirit BV) rendered a judgment on the question whether a franchisee upon termination of the cooperation
Transfer customer data to franchisor
In its judgment of 10 January 2017, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:68 (OnlineAccountants.nl), the Amsterdam Court ruled, among other things, on the question of how customer data should be transferred.
Franchise Closing Sale – Who Gets the Sale Proceeds?
The judgment of the District Court of the Northern Netherlands dated 12 October 2016, ECLI:NL:RBNNE:2016:5061 (Administrator/Expert Group and Rabobank), focused on the question whether the franchisor, together with the bank,
Column Franchise+ – mr. Th.R. Ludwig: “Judge: franchisor’s duty of care comparable to that of a bank”
Various judgments in 2016 made it clear how high the standard of care for a franchisor towards its franchisees is.