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
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
Transfer customer data to franchisor
In its judgment of 10 January 2017, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:68 (OnlineAccountants.nl), the Amsterdam Court ruled, among other things, on the question of how customer data should be transferred.
Franchise Closing Sale – Who Gets the Sale Proceeds?
The judgment of the District Court of the Northern Netherlands dated 12 October 2016, ECLI:NL:RBNNE:2016:5061 (Administrator/Expert Group and Rabobank), focused on the question whether the franchisor, together with the bank,
Column Franchise+ – mr. Th.R. Ludwig: “Judge: franchisor’s duty of care comparable to that of a bank”
Various judgments in 2016 made it clear how high the standard of care for a franchisor towards its franchisees is.