Penalty obligation for the franchisor for failure to comply with the franchise agreement
In a judgment of 9 November 2016, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2016:8667 (Coffeeclub2015), the Rotterdam District Court ruled on a case in which the franchisor had dissolved the franchise agreement because it was not possible to realize the agreed locations for exploiting the franchise agreement, because the necessary permits were not granted. The franchisee, however, saw this as an established obligation of the franchisee because it was precisely the location permits that were the reason for entering into the franchise agreement. The franchisor had tried to achieve this, but failed. The franchisor argued that there was a best efforts obligation. However, the franchise agreement stipulated that the franchisor “will” realize two locations. The normal meaning of the terms used here – in particular the imperative “will” – points to the existence of an obligation of result, according to the court.
The franchise agreement stipulates that the party that fails to comply with the franchise agreement is obliged to pay a penalty. The franchisor had not achieved the agreed result and was held liable by the franchisee for the penalty obligation. That fine had now risen to € 44,750. The franchisor is ordered to pay the entire penalty because no valid reason has been provided by the franchisor for the lack of payment.
The franchisor is further required to compensate the franchisee for the loss of gross margin. The court rules that other costs must also be deducted from the gross margin, such as car costs and costs of the accountant. The costs of coffee machines, coffee carts, etc. can also be considered. The franchisor is ordered to pay damages, to be drawn up by the state.
This judgment once again shows the need to pay close attention to the meaning of what is now being agreed when drawing up a franchise agreement.
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. 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.
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