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
Column Franchise + – mr. Th.R. Ludwig: “Towards strict liability”
The Supreme Court recently ruled in a prognosis issue.
Article in Entrance: “Rentals”
“The landlord increased the prices of the property every year, but he hasn't done this for 2 years, maybe he forgets. Can he still claim an overdue amount later?”
No valid appeal to non-compete clause in franchising
On 28 February 2017, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2017:1469, the provisional relief judge of the District Court of Gelderland ruled on whether a franchisee could be bound by a non-compete clause.
Structurally unsound revenue forecasts from the franchisor
On 15 March 2017, the District Court of Limburg ruled in eight similar judgments (including ECLI:NL:RBLIM:2017:2344) on the franchise agreements of various franchisees of the P3 franchise formula.
Franchisee obliged to cooperate with formula change?
On 24 March 2017, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2017:1860, the preliminary relief judge of the Amsterdam District Court once again considered the issue in which Intertoys wishes to convert Bart Smit's stores
Delivery stop by franchisor not allowed
On 9 February 2017, the preliminary relief judge of the District Court of Gelderland, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2017:1372, ruled that a franchisor had not fulfilled its obligation to supply the franchisee