Secretly another franchisee? Explanation contra proferentem
On 4 March 2015, the Court of Appeal of The Hague (ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2014:4601) issued a judgment on whether the franchisee should have been changed.
The franchise agreement stipulates that the franchise agreement may not be transferred to another person without the franchisor’s consent. Such clauses are common in franchise agreements. Often, and also in this case, there is a hefty contractual penalty for violating this provision. The idea behind this is that the franchisee wants to know exactly who the franchisee is and who is therefore also allowed to use the formula. In addition, it is in the franchisor’s interest to know exactly who to turn to in the event of non-compliance with the franchise agreement.
In the present case, the franchise agreement stipulated that a general partnership (a general partnership) was the franchisee. A partnership is a partnership of two or more persons. A BV can also be a partner. The difference between a general partnership and a BV is that a BV is an independent legal subject and a general partnership is not. Compare Section 2:5 of the Dutch Civil Code in combination with Section 2:175 paragraph 1 of the Dutch Civil Code and Section 18 of the Dutch Commercial Code, respectively.
After entering into the franchise agreement, one of the partners of the partnership had itself replaced by a BV. According to the franchisor, this created a (de facto) different contracting party than the franchisee with whom the contract was concluded. No permission was sought or granted by the franchisor. The franchisor claims the fine from the person who was previously a partner. After all, the rights under the franchise agreement have been transferred from a person to a legal entity, according to the franchisor.
The Court of Appeal ruled that if the franchisor had meant that a transfer of the company could also include a change of one of the partners, the franchisor must also formulate the relevant article in that sense. Since the franchisor had not done so, the fine cannot be claimed either. The franchise agreement, which the franchisor had drawn up, is interpreted to the detriment of the franchisor (contra proferentem) in view of the unclear explanation.
Franchisors would do well to draw up a franchise agreement with a legal expert. An unclear provision may be interpreted to the detriment of the author. In this case, the franchisor may have had a stronger legal position if, in addition to the general partnership, the partners had also been explicitly included as contracting parties.
Mr AW Dolphijn – Franchise lawyer
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice. Do you want to respond? Mail to dolphijn@ludwigvandam.nl
Other messages
Article Franchise+ – Franchisees enjoy the same protection as employees and commercial agents with regard to a non-competition clause – dated 7 May 2020 – mr. RCWL Albers
It often happens that, especially by franchisees, the validity of a post-contractual non-compete clause is considered too lightly.
The support agreement for the Retail sector in this Corona crisis – dated 15 April 2020 – mr. K. Bastian
On April 10, 2020, the Ministry of Economic Affairs, together with a number of landlords, retailers and banks, reached a support agreement.
Court rules that corona crisis does not constitute force majeure – dated April 10, 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
If payment cannot be made due to a decrease in income, then there is not always a force majeure situation.
Important information for directors of franchisees associations: Online meetings and decision-making in times of corona – dated April 10, 2020 – mr. J. Strong
Emergency law provisions for legally valid decisions without physically meeting within the association structure.
Unilateral amendment of the franchise agreement by the franchisor allowed? – dated April 7, 2020 – mr. K. Bastian
Is the franchisor allowed to implement certain announced changes/adaptations to the formula on the basis of the franchise agreement agreed between the parties?
Legal scientific publication: “Collective actions of franchisees” – dated April 2, 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
An article by mr. Alex Dolphin