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
Column Franchise + – mr. Th.R. Ludwig: “Towards strict liability”
The Supreme Court recently ruled in a prognosis issue.
Article in Entrance: “Rentals”
“The landlord increased the prices of the property every year, but he hasn't done this for 2 years, maybe he forgets. Can he still claim an overdue amount later?”
No valid appeal to non-compete clause in franchising
On 28 February 2017, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2017:1469, the provisional relief judge of the District Court of Gelderland ruled on whether a franchisee could be bound by a non-compete clause.
Structurally unsound revenue forecasts from the franchisor
On 15 March 2017, the District Court of Limburg ruled in eight similar judgments (including ECLI:NL:RBLIM:2017:2344) on the franchise agreements of various franchisees of the P3 franchise formula.
Franchisee obliged to cooperate with formula change?
On 24 March 2017, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2017:1860, the preliminary relief judge of the Amsterdam District Court once again considered the issue in which Intertoys wishes to convert Bart Smit's stores
Delivery stop by franchisor not allowed
On 9 February 2017, the preliminary relief judge of the District Court of Gelderland, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2017:1372, ruled that a franchisor had not fulfilled its obligation to supply the franchisee