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
The (in)validity of a post-contractual non-competition clause in a franchise agreement: analogy with employment law?
On 5 September 2017, the District Court of Gelderland, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2017:4565, rendered a judgment on, among other things, the question of whether Bruna, as a franchisor, could invoke the prohibition for a
Column Franchise+ – mr. J Sterk: “Court orders fast food chain to extend franchise agreement
The case is set to begin this year. For years, the franchisee has been refusing to sign the new franchise agreement that was offered with renewal, as it would lead to a deterioration of his legal position
Not a valid non-compete clause for franchisee
On 18 November 2016, the interim relief judge of the Central Netherlands District Court, ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2016:7754, rendered a judgment in the issue concerning whether the franchisee was held
Franchise & Law No. 5 – Acquisition Fraud and Franchising Act
The Acquisition Fraud Act came into effect on 1 July 2016. This includes amendments to Section 6:194 of the Dutch Civil Code.
Does a franchisee have to accept a new model franchise agreement?
On 31 March 2017, the District Court of Rotterdam, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2017:2457, ruled in interlocutory proceedings on the question whether franchisor Bram Ladage had complied with the franchise agreement with its franchisee.
Mandatory (market-based) purchase prices for franchisees
To what extent can a franchisor change agreements about the (market) purchase prices of the goods that the franchisees are obliged to purchase?