Purchase obligation and competitive prices
On 9 September 2015, the District Court of the Northern Netherlands (ECLI:NL:RBNNE:2015:4271) rendered a judgment on the question of whether a franchisor charged market prices in the case of an exclusive purchasing obligation.
Franchisees accuse the franchisor of misusing the prescribed purchase obligation because prices were not charged in line with the market. The franchise agreement prescribes that the prices must be in line with the market.
The court concludes that the franchisees have not sufficiently substantiated that the franchisor charged them prices that were not in line with the market. The mere fact that other suppliers had cheaper prices at different times (and usually for a limited number of products) is not sufficient for this. It cannot in any way be deduced from the statements of the franchisees that other suppliers could continuously supply all franchisees at those lower prices, according to the opinion.
Since, according to the court, the franchisees have not provided sufficient evidence to conclude that the franchisor has not supplied at market prices, there is no reason to allow them to provide further evidence. The opening of books requested by the franchisees is therefore also not ordered. Incidentally, the court also notes that the franchisees have not made it sufficiently clear why disclosure could contribute to relevant evidence. After all, the prices charged by the franchisor to the franchisees are known and the possibilities and prices of other providers will not be found in the books of the franchisor.
The claimed liability of the (indirect) directors and/or shareholders of the franchisor are also rejected in line with the foregoing.
Once again it appears that strict requirements are imposed on the substantiation of the statement that there are no market-based prices in the case of exclusive purchasing obligations.
Mr AW Dolphijn – Franchise lawyer
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice. Do you want to respond? Mail to dolphijn@ludwigvandam.nl
Other messages
Franchise Act will take effect on January 1, 2021 – mr. AW Dolphijn – dated December 3, 2020
The Franchise Act was already adopted on July 1, 2020, but it has now also been established by Royal Decree that the Franchise Act will enter into force on January 1, 2021.
Supermarket newsletter -29-
Supermarket newsletter -29-
Article Franchiseplus: “Divide the pain” – mr. Th.R. Ludwig – dated December 1, 2020
The corona crisis has brought many franchisors and franchisees into ...
Article De Nationale Franchise Gids: “Settlement problems with franchisee who is a general partnership” – mr. JAJ Devilee – dated November 30, 2020
In a recent dispute, two ex-spouses faced each other in an appeal procedure regarding the question whether the ex-wife forfeited penalty payments against the private company.
Article Franchise+ – “Recipient’s liability in a franchise context, what exactly is that about?” – mr. K. Bastiaans – dated November 24, 2020
The phenomenon of hirer's liability means that a third party can be held liable for the debts of another under certain conditions.
Franchisor liable for errors made by a franchisee? – mr. AW Dolphijn – dated November 23, 2020
A franchise organization asked the court to declare that the franchisor is not liable if a franchisee has made a serious mistake with a customer.