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
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
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.
Supermarket letter – 17
Supreme Court: More quickly liable for forecasts
Article in Entrance: “Small print”
“When I do business with a supplier, I never read the fine print. Recently I noticed that there are all kinds of things in it that I actually do not agree with.
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