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
Termination of franchise agreement in case of changes in leased retail space – September 27, 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
Termination of a franchise agreement in light of a substantial change in the leased retail space.
Article De Nationale Franchisegids: “Distribution of (potential) customers prohibited?” – September 17, 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
Within many franchise organizations, agreements are made about the recruitment of (potential) customers in a certain area.
District protection no protection against termination due to urgent own use – dated September 17, 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
As a landlord, can the franchisor terminate the lease for urgent own use, in the sense of district protection, while this would be excluded on the basis of the franchise agreement.
Unreasonable compensation at the end of the franchise agreement – dated September 17, 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
Some franchise agreements stipulate that the franchisee always owes the franchisor a minimum of a certain amount of costs upon termination of the franchise agreement.
Legal Franchise Statistics 2019: slight decrease in number of franchise disputes
In 2018, 44 judgments were published on Rechtspraak.nl, 12 of which were appeal cases and one in cassation (a prognosis issue against Albert Heijn).
Article De Nationale Franchisegids: “Judge again rules in favor of Domino’s franchisees” – dated September 3, 2019 – mr. RCWL Albers
At the beginning of 2018, almost all franchisees of Domino's and the Association of Domino's Pizza Franchisees submitted two issues to the court in Rotterdam.