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
Violation of duty of care affects exoneration
In a dispute about an appeal to an exoneration clause in the franchise agreement by the franchisor, it was considered that the nature of the franchise agreement should be taken into account
Supermarket letter – 5
Acquisition of a supermarket location by terminating the lease at the expense of the sitting tenant is allowed by the Supreme Court.
Acquisition of a supermarket location by terminating the lease at the expense of the sitting tenant is allowed by the Supreme Court
On 25 April 2014, the Supreme Court confirmed for the second time that the waiting period of three years for termination of the rental agreement for retail space due to urgent personal use after the purchase of the property
Unauthorized unilateral collective fee increase by the franchisor
In an important decision of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal of 23 April 2014, the question was whether a franchisor was allowed to implement an increase in a contribution.
Interests Association of Franchisees of the Netherlands (BVFN) is in further consultation with the Minister
On April 16, 2014, the previously announced meeting between the Belangen Vereniging Franchisenemers Nederland (BVFN) and the Ministry of Economic Affairs took place.
Exoneration of duty of care with the franchisor’s prognosis
In a judgment of the Overijssel court of 9 April 2014, the interesting question arose whether a collaboration should be qualified as a franchise.