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
Infringement of exclusive service area by franchisor in connection with formula change dated February 27, 2017
On 30 January 2017, the provisional relief judge of the District Court of Noord-Holland, ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2017:688 (Intertoys/franchisee), was asked how to deal with the
Forecasts at startup franchise formula
The Amsterdam Court of Appeal ruled on 14 February 2017, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:455 (Tot Straks/franchisee) on the question whether the franchisor had provided an unsatisfactory prognosis and whether the
Mandatory transfer of franchise business to franchisor?
On January 23, 2017, the District Court of Amsterdam, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2017:412 (CoffeeCompany/Dam Spirit BV) rendered a judgment on the question whether a franchisee upon termination of the cooperation
Transfer customer data to franchisor
In its judgment of 10 January 2017, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:68 (OnlineAccountants.nl), the Amsterdam Court ruled, among other things, on the question of how customer data should be transferred.
Franchise Closing Sale – Who Gets the Sale Proceeds?
The judgment of the District Court of the Northern Netherlands dated 12 October 2016, ECLI:NL:RBNNE:2016:5061 (Administrator/Expert Group and Rabobank), focused on the question whether the franchisor, together with the bank,
Column Franchise+ – mr. Th.R. Ludwig: “Judge: franchisor’s duty of care comparable to that of a bank”
Various judgments in 2016 made it clear how high the standard of care for a franchisor towards its franchisees is.