On the edge of a franchisee’s exclusive territory
The Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal ruled on 15 May 2018, ECLI:NL:GHARL:2018:4395, on whether a franchisor was allowed to open a branch just over the edge of the exclusively granted protection area.
In the franchise agreement it was agreed that the franchisee will be allocated an area with a radius of 300 meters around the location. No other branch of the franchisor would be located in this area.
The franchisee complains that the franchisor did not indicate when the agreement was concluded that another branch of the franchisor would be opened 380 meters from the franchisee’s business. The franchisee has argued, among other things, that with the location on the edge of the exclusivity area there are competitive activities that would depress profitability. The franchisor is thus charged with an unlawful act for breach of the franchisor’s pre-contractual information obligation.
According to the court, the franchisee had not fulfilled its duty to state that it would not be (properly) possible to operate two profitable branches at a distance of 380 meters from each other in the center of Almere. The Court of Appeal follows the opinion of the District Court that the franchisee has insufficiently substantiated its assertions by not providing information about the turnover it has realized and about the expectations it may have had in view of the turnover figures provided to it.
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
Bankrupt because the franchisor refused to sell the franchise company – dated January 28, 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The District Court of The Hague has dealt with a request from a franchisor to declare a franchisee bankrupt.
Prescribed shop fitting – dated January 28, 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Midden-Nederland District Court has ruled on whether a franchisee is obliged to carry the shop fittings prescribed by the franchisor.
Ludwig & Van Dam attorneys summon Sandd and PostNL on behalf of the Sandd franchisees – dated 9 January 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Association of Franchisees of Sandd (VFS) has today summoned Sandd and PostNL before the court in Arnhem. The VFS believes that Sandd and PostNL are letting the franchisees down hard.
Article The National Franchise Guide: “Why joint and several liability, for example, next to private?” – dated 7 January 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
Franchisees are often asked to co-sign the franchise agreement in addition to their franchise, for example. Sometimes franchisees refuse to do so and the franchise agreement is not signed.
Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten assists Sandd franchisees: Franchisees Sandd challenge postal monopoly in court – dated 12 November 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Association of Franchisees of Sandd (VFS) is challenging the decision of State Secretary Mona Keijzer to approve the postal merger between PostNL and Sandd before the court in Rotterdam.
Franchisee trapped by non-compete clause? – dated October 21, 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
The District Court of East Brabant has ruled that a franchisee was still bound by the non-competition clause in the event of premature termination of the franchise agreement.