Suspension post non-competition clause in Bruna franchise agreement
On 25 September 2015, the preliminary relief judge of the Utrecht District Court suspended the post-non-compete clause in a Bruna franchise agreement.
Bruna had indicated that it no longer wanted any connection with the location. At Bruna’s request, the franchisee had become the tenant of the retail property, instead of Bruna. Subsequently, Bruna had terminated the franchise agreement. The franchisee wished to continue the business under its own name. However, Bruna forbade this with reference to the post-non-compete clause.
The franchisee stated that Bruna had no interest in invoking the post non-compete clause. After all, she did not find the location interesting. The preliminary relief judge ruled in favor of the franchisee. In all fairness, Bruna has no legal interest to be respected in adhering to the post-non-competition clause.
Last year, on 16 July 2014 (ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2014:8667), Bruna was also rightly pointed out in this way that if and as long as it does not itself establish a Bruna store in the business premises, after termination of the franchise agreement, it cannot require the entrepreneur to comply with the non-competition prohibition.
If a franchisor wishes to withdraw from a certain location, this would seem to provide an opportunity for franchisees to set aside the post-non-compete clause. However, this will strongly depend on the specific franchise formula.
mr. AW Dolphijn – Franchise lawyer
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice. Do you want to respond? Mail to dolphijn@ludwigvandam.nl
Other messages
Franchisor liable for forecasts from third parties – dated March 6, 2019 – mr. M. Munnik
According to settled case law, a franchisor acts unlawfully towards its franchisee when a franchisor independently conducts research in a careless manner and as a result...
The (hard) franchise agreement and duty of care qualified – WPNR 7226 (2019)
The government intends to include a legal regulation on franchising in the Civil Code to protect the weak position of the franchisee.
The municipality must allow temporary Albert Heijn
On 7 February 2019, the District Court of Noord-Holland ruled on whether the municipality should allow a temporary Albert Heijn
Franchisors may no longer impose changes to store hours – February 12, 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
At the end of 2018, a draft of the “Freedom of Choice for Retailers (Opening Hours) Act” was presented.
When does a franchisor go too far when recruiting franchisees?
The judgment of the Court of Appeal of Arnhem-Leeuwarden on 5 February 2019 dealt with whether the franchisor had acted impermissibly when recruiting the franchisees.
Advisory Board on Regulatory Pressure (ATR) advises State Secretary Keijzer about the Franchise Act
In short, it is first advised to actively inform franchisors and franchisees about this amendment to the law.