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
HEMA sentenced to suspend e-commerce contribution to franchisees
HEMA is in conflict with its franchisees about the contribution to e-commerce costs. HEMA believes that the existing scheme from 1997 is outdated.
Error or deception in the conclusion of the franchise agreement
A franchisee who regrets after entering into a franchise agreement may believe that before or at the conclusion of the franchise agreement by the franchisor ...
Supermarket letter – 21
Judge: Protect franchisee against supermarket organization (Coop) as lessor
The supplier prescribed by the franchisor is not performing? What now?
The Court of Appeal of 's-Hertogenbosch ruled on 20 February 2018, ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2018:727, on the question of who must prove that the franchisee was misled when entering into the
Judge: Protect franchisee against supermarket organization (Coop) as lessor
Does the franchisee need legal protection from supermarket franchisor Coop? The District Court of Rotterdam ruled on 9 February 2018, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2018:1151, that this is the case.
Acquisition fraud vs. error in franchise forecasting
Who has to prove that the franchisor's forecast is unsound? In principle, this is the franchisee. If the franchisee invokes the Acquisition Fraud Act, it may be that