Following on from earlier published articles of my hand, I will once again deal with a tenancy law issue below. The franchise agreement concluded between the franchisor and franchisee is often closely linked to a rental agreement, since the franchisor, as lessor, has often concluded a rental agreement with the franchisee as lessee. The possibility and the way in which a rent change can be realized will be discussed in more detail below. This change can relate to both a rent reduction and a rent increase.

Article 7:303 of the Dutch Civil Code shows that both the franchisee and the franchisor can claim the court to further determine the rent if it does not correspond to that of comparable commercial space locally. This rental price determination is possible if the agreement applies for a definite period of time, after the agreed term has expired. In all other cases, rents can be fixed every time when at least five years have passed since the day on which the last rent set by the parties came into effect or on which the last rent set by the court was demanded.

It is relevant that the rent determination is accompanied by advice on the further rent, since otherwise the claim for rent determination would be inadmissible. The aforementioned advice must be drawn up by an expert in the field, such as a real estate agent, a member of the commercial rent advisory committee or an industry representative. When drawing up this advice, the relevant expert will have to take into account the average of the rents of comparable commercial premises on site, which have occurred in a period of five years prior to the day on which the claim was filed.

However, the necessary costs are associated with drawing up the advice, so that having such advice drawn up should not be taken lightly. To avoid such costs, it is therefore advisable to make agreements about the further rental price in good consultation at an earlier stage.

Ludwig & Van Dam franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice

Other messages

Interview Franchise+ – mrs. J. Sterk and AW Dolphijn – “Reversal burden of proof in forecasts honored by court”

The new Acquisition Fraud Act indeed appears to be relevant for the franchise industry, according to this article from Franchise+.

By Ludwig en van Dam|20-12-2017|Categories: Dispute settlement, Forecasting issues, Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , , |

Franchisor convicted under the Acquisition Fraud Act

For the first time, a court has ruled, with reference to the Acquisition Fraud Act, that if a franchisee claims that the franchisor has presented an unsatisfactory prognosis

Agreements Related to the Franchise Agreement

On 31 October 2017, the Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal issued similar judgments for nineteen franchisees (ECLI:NL:GHARL:2017:9453 through ECLI:NL:GHARL:2017:9472).

Column Franchise+ – mr. J. Sterk – “Franchisee does body check better than franchise check”

A gym embarks on a franchise concept that offers “Body Checks” and discounts to (potential) members in collaboration with health insurers.

Seminar Mrs. J. Sterk and M. Munnik – Thursday, November 2, 2017: “Important legal developments for franchisors”

Attorneys Jeroen Sterk and Maaike Munnik of Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten will update you on the status of and developments surrounding the Dutch Franchise Code and the Acquisition Fraude Act.

By Jeroen Sterk|02-11-2017|Categories: Forecasting issues, Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , |
Go to Top