Supreme Court confirms permit sale of franchisee outside exclusive district
High Council
Franchisee acquires and sells outside its territory, in territories not yet issued to other franchisees. Franchisor objects to this state of affairs and requests them to stop this subject to dissolution of the franchise agreement. The parties will make further agreements on how to deal with the problem. Ultimately, this results in a conflict in which the franchisor dissolves the franchise contract out of court. During a court hearing, both the franchisor and the franchisee argued that the franchisee was allowed to work in territories that had not yet been assigned to anyone. In the end, the franchisor’s argument that the franchisee was not allowed to do this does not hold up either in court or in the highest instance, i.e. the Supreme Court.
NB: Franchisor and franchisee need not even have agreed that the franchisee was allowed to operate in territories that had not yet been allocated, unless otherwise agreed in this context. On competition law grounds, a franchisee is always permitted to do this and in principle a franchisee may not be restricted in this, unless a nuanced arrangement, for example reserving the areas for the franchisor itself, has been agreed between the franchisor and the franchisee.
Mr Th.R. Ludwig – Franchise lawyer Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice Would you like to respond? Mail to ludwig@ludwigvandam.nl
Other messages
Which court for a rental and franchise agreement?
Which court is competent to rule on a related rental and franchise agreement?
Interview Franchise+ – mrs. J. Sterk and AW Dolphijn – “Reversal burden of proof in forecasts honored by court”
The new Acquisition Fraud Act indeed appears to be relevant for the franchise industry, according to this article from Franchise+.
Franchisor convicted under the Acquisition Fraud Act
For the first time, a court has ruled, with reference to the Acquisition Fraud Act, that if a franchisee claims that the franchisor has presented an unsatisfactory prognosis
Agreements Related to the Franchise Agreement
On 31 October 2017, the Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal issued similar judgments for nineteen franchisees (ECLI:NL:GHARL:2017:9453 through ECLI:NL:GHARL:2017:9472).
Column Franchise+ – mr. J. Sterk – “Franchisee does body check better than franchise check”
A gym embarks on a franchise concept that offers “Body Checks” and discounts to (potential) members in collaboration with health insurers.
Seminar Mrs. J. Sterk and M. Munnik – Thursday, November 2, 2017: “Important legal developments for franchisors”
Attorneys Jeroen Sterk and Maaike Munnik of Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten will update you on the status of and developments surrounding the Dutch Franchise Code and the Acquisition Fraude Act.