Not an exclusive catchment area, but still exclusivity for the franchisee
The judgment of the District Court of Noord-Holland dated 18 April 2018, ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2018:3268, ruled on the exclusivity area of a franchisee.
It was agreed that the franchisor is in principle entitled to admit another franchisee in the same district, provided that the franchisor has offered the franchisee the opportunity in writing to expand its business to meet customer demand and that the franchisee has given you 30 days to accept this offer.
However, the franchisee and the franchisee newly admitted to the district had already worked together before, each exploiting the formula for their own account. Although this argues that the new franchisee could be admitted by the franchisor to the relevant district, the interpretation is not only governed by the content of the franchise agreement, but also by reasonableness and fairness.
It turned out that the franchisee in question, newly admitted to the district, had just been presented to the franchisor as a temporary experiment and it had been agreed, at the suggestion of the existing franchisee, that “the ownership of the franchise license and the district will remain fully in the hands of [ the (existing) franchisee]” remains. The court therefore concludes that the franchisor, after the end of the experiment, should not have allowed the new franchisee in question to enter the territory of the existing franchisee. So the circumstances dictate how the franchise agreement should be applied.
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
Does a franchisee have to accept a new model franchise agreement?
On 31 March 2017, the District Court of Rotterdam, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2017:2457, ruled in interlocutory proceedings on the question whether franchisor Bram Ladage had complied with the franchise agreement with its franchisee.
Mandatory (market-based) purchase prices for franchisees
To what extent can a franchisor change agreements about the (market) purchase prices of the goods that the franchisees are obliged to purchase?
Director’s liability of a franchisee after failing to rely on an unsound prognosis.
On 11 July 2017, the Court of Appeal of 's-Hertogenbosch made a decision on whether the franchisor could successfully sue the director of a BV for non-compliance with the
Liability accountant for prepared prognosis?
In a judgment of the Court of Appeal of 's-Hertogenbosch of 11 July 2017, ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2017:3153, it was discussed that franchisees accused the franchisor's accountant of being liable
How far does the bank’s duty of care extend?
Some time ago the question was raised in case law what the position of the bank is in the triangular relationship franchisor – bank – franchisee.
Burden of proof reversal in forecasting as misleading advertising?
In an interlocutory judgment of 15 June 2017, the District Court of Zeeland-West-Brabant, ECLI:NL:RBZWB:2017:3833, ruled on a claim for (among other things) suspension of the non-compete clause.