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
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?