Suspension of payouts allowed by the franchisor
The District Court of Limburg ruled on 30 March 2023, ECLI:NL:RBLIM:2023:2287, that a franchisor could suspend payments to a franchisee.
Under the Franchise Agreement, the Franchisee must arrange for the collection of membership fees from its Members through a supplier designated by the Franchisor. Thus, the membership fees are not collected directly by the franchisee, but through a billing and payment processing service designated by the franchisor.
The franchisee had placed the franchise company in a private limited company. To this end, the franchisor’s consent and cooperation were lacking. Pursuant to the franchise agreement, the franchisee is not permitted to directly or indirectly effect a transfer without the prior written consent of the franchisor. The fact that the franchisor was aware of the BV’s existence, and that the franchisor also addressed the BV in its correspondence, does not mean that the franchisor implicitly cooperated in the disputed transfer. Moreover, the BV was not a party to the franchise agreement and must be regarded as a third party (as referred to in article 6:159 paragraph 1 of the Dutch Civil Code). The franchisee also had a contractual pre-emption right in the case of the intended transfer of the franchise company, which was not fulfilled when the franchise companies were transferred from the sole proprietorship to the BV.
The court rules that there has been a failure to comply with the obligations under the franchise agreement. Therefore, the franchisor could have had the payments to the franchisee suspended (or had them suspended) (third-party clause pursuant to article 6:253 in conjunction with 6:254 paragraph 1 of the Dutch Civil Code).
Ludwig & Van Dam lawyers, franchise legal advice.
Do you want to respond? Then email to dolphijn@ludwigvandam.nl
Other messages
Bankrupt because the franchisor refused to sell the franchise company – dated January 28, 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The District Court of The Hague has dealt with a request from a franchisor to declare a franchisee bankrupt.
Prescribed shop fitting – dated January 28, 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Midden-Nederland District Court has ruled on whether a franchisee is obliged to carry the shop fittings prescribed by the franchisor.
Ludwig & Van Dam attorneys summon Sandd and PostNL on behalf of the Sandd franchisees – dated 9 January 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Association of Franchisees of Sandd (VFS) has today summoned Sandd and PostNL before the court in Arnhem. The VFS believes that Sandd and PostNL are letting the franchisees down hard.
Article The National Franchise Guide: “Why joint and several liability, for example, next to private?” – dated 7 January 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
Franchisees are often asked to co-sign the franchise agreement in addition to their franchise, for example. Sometimes franchisees refuse to do so and the franchise agreement is not signed.
Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten assists Sandd franchisees: Franchisees Sandd challenge postal monopoly in court – dated 12 November 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Association of Franchisees of Sandd (VFS) is challenging the decision of State Secretary Mona Keijzer to approve the postal merger between PostNL and Sandd before the court in Rotterdam.
Franchisee trapped by non-compete clause? – dated October 21, 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
The District Court of East Brabant has ruled that a franchisee was still bound by the non-competition clause in the event of premature termination of the franchise agreement.