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).

mr. A.W. Dolphijn
Ludwig & Van Dam lawyers, franchise legal advice.
Do you want to respond? Then email to dolphijn@ludwigvandam.nl

Other messages

Damage estimate after wrongful termination of the franchise agreement by the franchisor

In a judgment of the Supreme Court of 15 September 2017, ECLI:NL:HR:2017:2372 (Franchisee/Coop), it was discussed that supermarket organization Coop had not complied with agreements, as a result of which the franchisee

Franchisor is obliged to extend the franchise agreement

On 6 September 2017, the Rotterdam District Court ruled, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2017:6975 (Misty / Bram Ladage), that the refusal to extend a franchise agreement by a franchisor

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

By Jeroen Sterk|01-09-2017|Categories: Dispute settlement, Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , |

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.

By Ludwig en van Dam|10-08-2017|Categories: Dispute settlement, Forecasting issues, Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , , |
Go to Top