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
Which court for a rental and franchise agreement?
Which court is competent to rule on a related rental and franchise agreement?
Interview Franchise+ – mrs. J. Sterk and AW Dolphijn – “Reversal burden of proof in forecasts honored by court”
The new Acquisition Fraud Act indeed appears to be relevant for the franchise industry, according to this article from Franchise+.
Franchisor convicted under the Acquisition Fraud Act
For the first time, a court has ruled, with reference to the Acquisition Fraud Act, that if a franchisee claims that the franchisor has presented an unsatisfactory prognosis
Agreements Related to the Franchise Agreement
On 31 October 2017, the Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal issued similar judgments for nineteen franchisees (ECLI:NL:GHARL:2017:9453 through ECLI:NL:GHARL:2017:9472).
Column Franchise+ – mr. J. Sterk – “Franchisee does body check better than franchise check”
A gym embarks on a franchise concept that offers “Body Checks” and discounts to (potential) members in collaboration with health insurers.
Seminar Mrs. J. Sterk and M. Munnik – Thursday, November 2, 2017: “Important legal developments for franchisors”
Attorneys Jeroen Sterk and Maaike Munnik of Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten will update you on the status of and developments surrounding the Dutch Franchise Code and the Acquisition Fraude Act.