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

Alex Dolphijn in the Financial Dagblad about the judgment of the Supreme Court regarding Street-One

Franchisors more liable for incorrect forecasts Franchisees can now more easily hold their parent organization liable for incorrect profit and turnover forecasts.

Column Franchise+ – mr. Th.R. Ludwig: “Delivery stop by franchisor again not allowed”

Once again, the president in preliminary relief proceedings ruled on the question whether a franchisor's supply stop against the franchisee was permitted, with the franchisee paying a substantial

The manager (employee) who becomes a franchisee – fictitious employment?

On 14 December 2016, the subdistrict court judge of the District Court of Noord-Holland, ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2016:11031 (Employee/Espresso Lounge), considered the situation in which an employee

The Supreme Court sets strict requirements for franchise forecasts

A ruling by the Supreme Court on Friday casts a new light on the provision of profit and turnover forecasts to aspiring franchisees.

By Ludwig en van Dam|28-02-2017|Categories: Dispute settlement, Forecasting issues, Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , , |
Go to Top