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
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.