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
Goodwill at end of franchise agreement
In a case before the Amsterdam Court of Appeal on 26 September 2017, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:3900 (Seal & Go), a franchisee claimed compensation for goodwill (ex Article 7:308 of the Dutch Civil Code) after the
Article in Entrance: “Resignation”
Fire an employee who is not performing well? The subdistrict court is strict. If you, as an employer, cannot demonstrate that you have done everything yourself to make the person function better, it will be
Cost price that is too high as a hidden franchise fee
An interlocutory judgment of the District Court of The Hague dated 30 August 2017, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2017:10597 (Happy Nurse) shows that the court has considered the question whether the
Supermarket letter – 19
Coop liability for damages due to non-performance towards the franchisee
Damage estimate after wrongful termination of the franchise agreement by the franchisor
In a judgment of the Supreme Court of 15 September 2017, ECLI:NL:HR:2017:2372 (Franchisee/Coop), it was discussed that supermarket organization Coop had not complied with agreements, as a result of which the franchisee
Franchisor is obliged to extend the franchise agreement
On 6 September 2017, the Rotterdam District Court ruled, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2017:6975 (Misty / Bram Ladage), that the refusal to extend a franchise agreement by a franchisor