Obligation to sell back at the end of the franchise agreement
Franchise agreements sometimes provide that the franchisee is required to sell back purchased assets at the end of the franchise agreement. What if the franchisee sold the assets to another before the end of the franchise agreement? The preliminary relief judge of the District Court of Central Netherlands ruled on this question on 29 December 2017, ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2017:6793.
Pursuant to the franchise agreement, the franchisee is obliged to purchase certain equipment for the operation of the franchise formula. The franchise agreement stipulates that the franchisee must sell the purchased equipment back to the franchisor.
The franchisee, on the other hand, argues that it sold the equipment to a third party (in good faith) which would prevent it from meeting the sell-back obligation. In that case, the former franchisee could perhaps only be ordered to pay replacement compensation in proceedings on the merits.
However, the preliminary relief judge does not believe that the former franchisee actually sold the equipment to a third party. The preliminary relief judge considers that the story of the former franchisee is implausible, partly because the sale allegedly took place to the brother of the former franchisee, the former franchisee continued to use the equipment and that the equipment was only very recently moved to the new location of the former franchisee.
The conclusion is that the former franchisee is ordered to make the equipment available to the franchisor.
mr. AW Dolphin – franchise lawyer
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice. Do you want to respond? Go to dolphijn@ludwigvandam.nl .
Other messages
Article in Entrance: “Rentals”
“The landlord increased the prices of the property every year, but he hasn't done this for 2 years, maybe he forgets. Can he still claim an overdue amount later?”
No valid appeal to non-compete clause in franchising
On 28 February 2017, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2017:1469, the provisional relief judge of the District Court of Gelderland ruled on whether a franchisee could be bound by a non-compete clause.
Structurally unsound revenue forecasts from the franchisor
On 15 March 2017, the District Court of Limburg ruled in eight similar judgments (including ECLI:NL:RBLIM:2017:2344) on the franchise agreements of various franchisees of the P3 franchise formula.
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.