Supermarket letter – 3

By Published On: 11-06-2013Categories: label11, SupermarketsTags:

                                                               SUPERMARKET NEWSLETTER NO. 3 

 

1. Infringement of the market territory by the own franchisor: overlapping exclusivity.

2. How independent is the supermarket entrepreneur still?

3. The lessor is also responsible for the immediate surroundings of the rented property.

4. New (improved) model rental agreement.

5. Jumbo continues with price comparison.

6. Payrolling; Will the real boss please stand up.

7. Unlawful competition from Makro-types?

8.Is a Pick-Up-Point a shop?

 

Click here for the entire article.

Other messages

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?

Director’s liability of a franchisee after failing to rely on an unsound prognosis.

On 11 July 2017, the Court of Appeal of 's-Hertogenbosch made a decision on whether the franchisor could successfully sue the director of a BV for non-compliance with the

Liability accountant for prepared prognosis?

In a judgment of the Court of Appeal of 's-Hertogenbosch of 11 July 2017, ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2017:3153, it was discussed that franchisees accused the franchisor's accountant of being liable

How far does the bank’s duty of care extend?

Some time ago the question was raised in case law what the position of the bank is in the triangular relationship franchisor – bank – franchisee.

Burden of proof reversal in forecasting as misleading advertising?

In an interlocutory judgment of 15 June 2017, the District Court of Zeeland-West-Brabant, ECLI:NL:RBZWB:2017:3833, ruled on a claim for (among other things) suspension of the non-compete clause.

Go to Top