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

Not an exclusive catchment area, but still exclusivity for the franchisee

The judgment of the District Court of Noord-Holland dated 18 April 2018, ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2018:3268, ruled on the exclusivity area of ​​a franchisee.

Termination or dissolution of the franchise agreement by the franchisee

In principle, franchise agreements can be terminated prematurely, for example by cancellation or dissolution. On 21 March 2018, the District Court of Overijssel ruled on ECLI:NL:RBOVE:2018:1335 on

Column Franchise + – mr. Th.R. Ludwig: “Fictitious employment: DBA Act shifts responsibility”

The Deregulation Assessment of Labor Relations Act (Wet DBA) has been in force for some time now.

Go to Top