Sale of rental rights supermarket location not allowed
Recently, the Court of Appeal in The Hague issued a directional judgment for switching locations between supermarket organisations. The case was as follows.
Supermarket chain X, a discounter, enters into an agreement to transfer exploitation rights with supermarket chain Y, a so-called full-service supermarket. Among other things, goodwill, construction facilities and tenancy rights are transferred for the location in question. It is true that personnel are also transferred, but the most important personnel, the cadre, are not transferred.
Also, no stocks and inventory are taken over. After all, the business space must be delivered to Y “empty and broom clean”, as it is called. After this, Y wants to establish a supermarket belonging to its formula. However, the landlord opposes the cooperation of X taking over the tenancy rights from Y. Such a contract takeover cannot take place without the approval of the landlord. An exception to this main rule is the statutory right to request replacement permission from the subdistrict court judge by means of a substitution authorization. That claim is the subject of debate here. However, assignment is only possible if all legal requirements are met, including, among other things, a “substantial interest” in “acquisition of a company”.
The Court of Appeal concludes that in this case there is no “company” or will be taken over if only an empty business space and thus only the rental rights are taken over. The legal rule has not been written for this, according to the court. Moreover, the Court of Appeal states that insufficient weight has also been shown. The stated financial need is too brief and therefore insufficiently plausible.
This statement is certainly interesting in relation to the agreements that supermarket organizations make on the heads of both franchisees/sub-tenants and owners of supermarket locations, who feel supported by this against having to accept a tenant/sub-lessor that is unwelcome to them. The Court of Appeal has opted for a restrictive application of the statutory substitution scheme, which is perhaps also best suited to an exception to the principle of freedom of contract enshrined in the Dutch system.
Ludwig & Van Dam franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice
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.