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
Column Franchise + – mr. Th.R. Ludwig: “Towards strict liability”
The Supreme Court recently ruled in a prognosis issue.
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