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 passed by the House of Representatives – dated 16 June 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Franchise Act was adopted by the House of Representatives on 16 June 2020.
Sandd franchisees find satisfaction in nullifying Sandd and PostNL merger – dated 12 June 2020
The franchisees of mail delivery company Sandd went to court in November, assisted by Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten. Court of Rotterdam rules on takeover by PostNL.
Plenary debate dated June 9, 2020 in the Lower House of the Franchise Act – dated June 10, 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
On 9 June 2020, the legislative proposal for the Franchise Act was discussed in plenary in the House of Representatives. An amendment and a motion have been tabled.
Franchising is “a bottleneck in tackling healthcare fraud” – dated 10 June 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
According to the various supervisory authorities in the healthcare sector, franchise constructions can be seen as a non-transparent business construction in which the supervision of professional and
Article Franchiseplus: “Franchisors participate in franchisees” – dated June 3, 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
Franchisors are increasingly participating in the franchisee's business. There are several benefits for both the franchisee and the franchisor.
Article The National Franchise Guide – “Corona discount on rent” – dated June 2, 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
If a rental property is obliged to be closed due to corona, there may be a right to a rent reduction, according to the Northern Netherlands court.