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
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.