Qualification of renting industrial premises and its consequences
Under the new tenancy law, it is clearer than before when there is a question of renting industrial space and renting other space. This distinction is important when there is a link with the franchise agreement. If the franchisor independently rents space and in turn sublets it to the franchisee, there is a franchise agreement and a sublease agreement between the franchisor and the franchisee. Ideally, these agreements are properly linked to avoid different terms or non-simultaneous termination. If there is a lease of business space within the meaning of Article 7:290 paragraph 2 of the Dutch Civil Code, the main statutory rule applies that, subject to exceptions, the business space must be made available for two times five years. In that case, it is advisable to construct a relevant link to the franchise agreement in that sense.
In that case, it is important to first determine whether such business premises or other business space are involved. Examples of retail business premises include a hairdresser, kiosk, station restaurant, textile store, and video store.
Doubtful is a pharmacy and a showroom.
Other business premises, where in principle the main rule of term protection of two times five years is not present and therefore a fundamentally different link to the franchise agreement must be made are a beauty salon, a fitness center and a bicycle shed.
It is very important to carefully determine in advance when there is business space of a retail company or other space. Partly depending on the correct qualification, an adequate rental link must then be constructed between the relevant (sub)lease agreement and the franchise agreement. Careful consideration in advance prevents surprises during (premature) termination and settlement.
Ludwig & Van Dam franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice
Other messages
Bankrupt because the franchisor refused to sell the franchise company – dated January 28, 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The District Court of The Hague has dealt with a request from a franchisor to declare a franchisee bankrupt.
Prescribed shop fitting – dated January 28, 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Midden-Nederland District Court has ruled on whether a franchisee is obliged to carry the shop fittings prescribed by the franchisor.
Ludwig & Van Dam attorneys summon Sandd and PostNL on behalf of the Sandd franchisees – dated 9 January 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Association of Franchisees of Sandd (VFS) has today summoned Sandd and PostNL before the court in Arnhem. The VFS believes that Sandd and PostNL are letting the franchisees down hard.
Article The National Franchise Guide: “Why joint and several liability, for example, next to private?” – dated 7 January 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
Franchisees are often asked to co-sign the franchise agreement in addition to their franchise, for example. Sometimes franchisees refuse to do so and the franchise agreement is not signed.
Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten assists Sandd franchisees: Franchisees Sandd challenge postal monopoly in court – dated 12 November 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Association of Franchisees of Sandd (VFS) is challenging the decision of State Secretary Mona Keijzer to approve the postal merger between PostNL and Sandd before the court in Rotterdam.
Franchisee trapped by non-compete clause? – dated October 21, 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
The District Court of East Brabant has ruled that a franchisee was still bound by the non-competition clause in the event of premature termination of the franchise agreement.