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
![](https://ludwigvandam.megaconcept.nl/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/232court-min-400x222.jpg)
Other messages
Webshops in franchise relationships
According to data published by Statistics Netherlands in January 2016
Between Forecasts and Expectations in Franchising – February 9, 2016 – Mr. AW Dolphin
Between forecasts and expectations in franchising
No non-compete violation by franchisee – February 9, 2016 – mr. AW Dolphin
No non-compete violation by franchisee
Entree article: “Changing the flag; the ins and outs of franchise deals in the hotel industry” – mr. AW Dolphijn – February 2016
Article in Entree: "Changing the flag; the ins and outs of franchise deals in the hotel industry"
No compensation of goodwill in franchise agreements? – January 28, 2016 – mr. AW Dolphin
No compensation of goodwill in franchise agreements?
Supermarket letter – 12
Court of East Brabant issues (interim) judgment in long-running conflict of the Van De Huijgevoort brothers against Jumbo