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
Column Franchise+ – mr. Th.R. Ludwig: “Delivery stop by franchisor again not allowed”
Once again, the president in preliminary relief proceedings ruled on the question whether a franchisor's supply stop against the franchisee was permitted, with the franchisee paying a substantial
The manager (employee) who becomes a franchisee – fictitious employment?
On 14 December 2016, the subdistrict court judge of the District Court of Noord-Holland, ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2016:11031 (Employee/Espresso Lounge), considered the situation in which an employee
The Supreme Court sets strict requirements for franchise forecasts
A ruling by the Supreme Court on Friday casts a new light on the provision of profit and turnover forecasts to aspiring franchisees.
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