Silent extension
Many franchise agreements contain provisions governing the termination and possible continuation of the existing franchise agreement. It is quite often included in the franchise agreement that the agreement is tacitly renewed under the same conditions if neither party, franchisor or franchisee, cancels. Is such a regulation permissible under all circumstances?
If there is a sublease situation in which the franchisee rents from the franchisor, this is permissible in all cases as long as the sublease agreement continues and the market share of the relevant franchise organization does not exceed 30%. Please note that this market share can be regional or local as well as national.
If there is no question of subletting, tacit renewal is still possible as long as the market share of the franchise organization is below 15%. Contrary to what is sometimes thought, tacit renewal of a franchise agreement is therefore often possible in practice. It should be noted, however, that the regulation on which the possibility of tacit renewal is based for a market share of less than 15% can in theory be set aside by the court or the Netherlands Competition Authority (NMa). In a specific practical case, however, the NMa ruled that the regulation in question had to be fully respected.
When extending the franchise agreement, it is therefore really not necessary in all cases to conclude a new agreement and therefore necessarily sit down together. A simple clause that properly regulates tacit renewal for the parties is often sufficient.
Ludwig & Van Dam franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice
Other messages
The (in)validity of a post-contractual non-competition clause in a franchise agreement: analogy with employment law?
On 5 September 2017, the District Court of Gelderland, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2017:4565, rendered a judgment on, among other things, the question of whether Bruna, as a franchisor, could invoke the prohibition for a
Column Franchise+ – mr. J Sterk: “Court orders fast food chain to extend franchise agreement
The case is set to begin this year. For years, the franchisee has been refusing to sign the new franchise agreement that was offered with renewal, as it would lead to a deterioration of his legal position
Not a valid non-compete clause for franchisee
On 18 November 2016, the interim relief judge of the Central Netherlands District Court, ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2016:7754, rendered a judgment in the issue concerning whether the franchisee was held
Franchise & Law No. 5 – Acquisition Fraud and Franchising Act
The Acquisition Fraud Act came into effect on 1 July 2016. This includes amendments to Section 6:194 of the Dutch Civil Code.
Does a franchisee have to accept a new model franchise agreement?
On 31 March 2017, the District Court of Rotterdam, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2017:2457, ruled in interlocutory proceedings on the question whether franchisor Bram Ladage had complied with the franchise agreement with its franchisee.
Mandatory (market-based) purchase prices for franchisees
To what extent can a franchisor change agreements about the (market) purchase prices of the goods that the franchisees are obliged to purchase?