Preferential right of purchase in lease does not apply – September 7, 2018 – mr. AW Dolphin
The District Court of The Hague ruled on 5 September 2018, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2018:10554, that a share transaction within the tenant’s organization does not mean that the landlord can invoke the pre-emptive right stipulated in favor of the landlord of buy.
However, it should be noted that the rental agreement and the pre-emptive right of purchase were concluded at the time by expert parties and expert advisers and that there was an ‘intercompany’ rental agreement within the same group. Therefore, according to the court, great weight should be attached to the linguistic meaning of the chosen wording of the agreement in this specific case. Therefore, the pre-emptive right of purchase cannot be circumvented in all cases by means of a transaction of the shares in the lessee.
mr. AW Dolphin – franchise lawyer
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice. Do you want to respond? Contact
Other messages
Franchisor fails by invoking a non-compete clause
Although a non-compete clause is validly formulated in a franchise agreement, a situation may arise that is so diffuse that the franchisor cannot invoke it.
Acquisitions and Franchise Interest
It will not have escaped anyone's attention, certainly in the last year it can only be concluded that the Dutch economy is once again on the rise.
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).