Tenancy law and franchise: approval of deviating terms in the tenancy agreement, despite material infringement and the lack of an equal social position between the tenant and landlord
franchisor, franchisee, lessee
The District Court of Rotterdam recently ruled in a rental case in which the landlord, Markthal Rotterdam BV, requested approval of a number of deviating rental clauses in the rental agreement with its tenant.
A deviating clause will only be approved if the clause does not materially affect the rights that the tenant derives from Section 7.4.6 or if his position in society compared to that of the lessor is such that he does not reasonably need the protection of Section 7.4.6.
This judgment of the Rotterdam District Court can be called special because in the present case there is indeed a substantial infringement of the tenant’s rights and the lack of an equivalent social position. The decisive factor for the approval by the subdistrict court was that, despite the deviating stipulations, the rights of the tenant are still sufficiently guaranteed by the landlord, partly due to the long term of the lease, the limited investments by the tenant and the undertaking by the landlord to offer replacement business space at the end of the lease.
Franchisors/landlords regularly ask the subdistrict court for approval of deviating clauses in the lease, for example because they want to link the term of the lease to the term of the franchise agreement or the term of the main lease. The fact that there is no equal social position between the franchisor/landlord and the franchisee/lessee is undisputed and unchangeable. What a franchisor/landlord can do to obtain approval is to ensure that there are sufficient guarantees for the franchisee/lessee. Both during the term of the rental agreement and afterwards.
Mr AC van Engel – Franchise lawyer
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice. Do you want to respond? Mail to vanengel@ludwigvandam.nl
Other messages
Column Franchise+ – mr. J. Sterk – “Franchisee does body check better than franchise check”
A gym embarks on a franchise concept that offers “Body Checks” and discounts to (potential) members in collaboration with health insurers.
Seminar Mrs. J. Sterk and M. Munnik – Thursday, November 2, 2017: “Important legal developments for franchisors”
Attorneys Jeroen Sterk and Maaike Munnik of Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten will update you on the status of and developments surrounding the Dutch Franchise Code and the Acquisition Fraude Act.
Goodwill at end of franchise agreement
In a case before the Amsterdam Court of Appeal on 26 September 2017, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:3900 (Seal & Go), a franchisee claimed compensation for goodwill (ex Article 7:308 of the Dutch Civil Code) after the
Article in Entrance: “Resignation”
Fire an employee who is not performing well? The subdistrict court is strict. If you, as an employer, cannot demonstrate that you have done everything yourself to make the person function better, it will be
Cost price that is too high as a hidden franchise fee
An interlocutory judgment of the District Court of The Hague dated 30 August 2017, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2017:10597 (Happy Nurse) shows that the court has considered the question whether the
Supermarket letter – 19
Coop liability for damages due to non-performance towards the franchisee