Side effects of non-compete clauses
Many franchise agreements contain a non-compete clause, both during the term of the franchise agreement and usually for a year after its expiry. The purport of that clause is usually that during the term of the franchise agreement and the following year, the franchisee is generally not permitted to perform competitive activities with the organization of the franchisor. In itself, such a clause is a generally accepted means of preventing franchisees from too easily using the knowledge and know-how obtained through the franchise organization to compete with that same organization. However, an unintended side effect of that non-competition clause insofar as it pertains to the period after termination of the franchise agreement may be that it makes it impossible for the franchisee to meet certain obligations. After the franchise agreement has expired, the franchisee may still have to perform various actions in connection with either the transfer or the liquidation of his business. Such actions may in themselves be in breach of the non-competition clause. However, things become more pressing when there are ongoing legal obligations. Something similar occurs in practice in financial services franchise organizations. These services are regularly subject to the regime of the Financial Services Act (WFD). In that context, it must be certain, among other things, that an insurance portfolio of the franchisee in question is adequately managed, irrespective of the duration of a franchise agreement and therefore also after it has been terminated for whatever reason. This problem arises in particular when the franchisee concerned has a license under the WFD in his own name, on the basis of which he can act as an insurance intermediary.
In situations such as the present one, it goes without saying that consultation between franchisor and franchisee is an obvious step to resolve any problems amicably, with the interests of the franchisee’s customers first and foremost. Furthermore, it is advisable to take this problem into account where possible when drawing up and applying the non-competition clause in question.
Ludwig & Van Dam franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice
Other messages
Ludwig & Van Dam attorneys summon Sandd and PostNL on behalf of the Sandd franchisees – dated 9 January 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Association of Franchisees of Sandd (VFS) has today summoned Sandd and PostNL before the court in Arnhem. The VFS believes that Sandd and PostNL are letting the franchisees down hard.
Article The National Franchise Guide: “Why joint and several liability, for example, next to private?” – dated 7 January 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
Franchisees are often asked to co-sign the franchise agreement in addition to their franchise, for example. Sometimes franchisees refuse to do so and the franchise agreement is not signed.
Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten assists Sandd franchisees: Franchisees Sandd challenge postal monopoly in court – dated 12 November 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Association of Franchisees of Sandd (VFS) is challenging the decision of State Secretary Mona Keijzer to approve the postal merger between PostNL and Sandd before the court in Rotterdam.
Franchisee trapped by non-compete clause? – dated October 21, 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
The District Court of East Brabant has ruled that a franchisee was still bound by the non-competition clause in the event of premature termination of the franchise agreement.
Supermarket letter – 26
Supermarket Newsletter No. 26
Link franchise agreement and rental agreement uncertain? – dated October 14, 2019 – mr K. Bastiaans
It is no exception within a franchise relationship that the parties agree that the franchise agreement and the rental agreement are inextricably linked.