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
HEMA in conflict with franchisees about e-commerce agreements
On 18 July 2018, the District Court of Amsterdam, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2018:5098, rendered a judgment in proceedings on the merits in which the franchisees were largely ruled in favor of e-commerce.
mr. J. Sterk about HEMA conflict in the FD 18 July 2018
mr. J. Sterk about HEMA conflict in the FD.
Column Franchise+ – “Legal Franchise Statistics 2018”
The Legal Franchise Statistics have been compiled for 10 years by Ludwig & Van Dam attorneys on the basis of all published judgments of judges.
Franchisor prohibits opening (franchise) company
A franchisor applied for interim measures to prohibit a franchisee from opening a franchisee's business.
Column Snack courier no. 8: “With 7 steps you comply with the privacy law”
Much has already been written about the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The law has been applicable since 25 May, but many companies have not yet had their privacy policy in order.
Forced to switch to a different franchise formula at the existing location?
If a franchise formula ceases to exist, for example if it is incorporated into another organization, the question may be whether the franchisee is also obliged to be incorporated into