Sale of a franchise company due to a non-competition clause: False construction or not?
Franchisees who are unwilling or unable to continue with the franchise company experience whether or not the non-competition clause is valid or not. Continuing without a franchise is then risky. Does the clause apply or not? The outcome of a costly procedure is often uncertain. A solution may then be to sell the company to someone else who will continue the same activities without cooperation with the franchisor. Recently, the Arnhem Court of Appeal (ECLI:NL:GHARL:2018:3128) and the Overijssel District Court (ECLI:NL:RBOVE:2018:3489) ruled on the question of whether that sale should be regarded as a sham construction to evade the non-competition clause.
In the case of a Bruna entrepreneur, violation of the non-competition clause was assumed because after the sale there was still “involvement” with the successor company. In the case of the pellet stove formula JustFire, it was considered that the mere fact that the ex-life partner with whom the ex-franchisee was still in contact, but continued to sell stoves entirely at his own risk and expense, did not mean that there would be a sham construction. In other words, no involvement with the successor company was assumed. That involvement is therefore the assessment criterion.
In the latter case, it was also considered that in a claim for compliance with the non-competition clause, the fact that the franchisor takes the initiative to terminate can also be taken into account. The ex-franchisee of JustFire was faced with a rather abrupt dissolution.
Finally, the Court of Overijssel considers that mediating in the sale of stoves can also be regarded as an agency for the time being. Unlike franchise, agency is an agreement defined by law. Both rules for termination and the non-competition clause apply to this. That clause lapses in the event of irregular termination by the franchisor/principal.
Formula foreign sale of the franchise company is therefore a serious option when the franchise agreement is terminated.
mr. J. Sterk – franchise lawyer
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice. Do you want to respond? Go to strong@ludwigvandam.nl
Other messages
Which court for a rental and franchise agreement?
Which court is competent to rule on a related rental and franchise agreement?
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+.
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.