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
The Real Intentions of the Parties to a Franchise Agreement – Mr. C. Damen – dated November 23, 2020
What really was the idea of the parties when they concluded a franchise agreement?
Circumventing the prohibition of competition in the franchise agreement – mr. AW Dolphijn – dated November 10, 2020
A non-competition clause in a franchise agreement is often experienced as objectionable by franchisees, especially if the non-competition clause also applies after the franchise agreement has expired.
Article Franchise+ – “How do I get rid of my debts: Also for franchisees and franchisors” – mr. AW Dolphijn – dated October 20, 2020
A reorganization may also be necessary for franchisees and franchisors who are in financial difficulties in order to continue to exist.
Article De Nationale Franchise Gids: “Reinvestment obligation for franchisees has limits” – dated October 13, 2020 – mr. RCWL Albers
In practice, it often happens that franchisors choose to renew their franchise formula and the appropriate image
Judge anticipates Franchise Act: no mandatory formula change (without threshold value)
The District Court of Amsterdam ruled that a Blokker franchisee is not obliged to renovate the store in accordance with the latest formula principles, as instructed by Blokker.
Interview Mr. J. Sterk and mr. C. Rutten in Franchise+: “Call to the automotive sector: prepare yourself well for the new Franchise Act” dated October 2, 2020
The new Franchise Act has a broad effect, also in the automotive sector. But are people aware of it enough?