Termination of the franchise agreement does not automatically lead to termination of the sublease agreement
Court of Dordrecht
Franchisor terminated the franchise agreement with the franchisee. The franchise agreement stipulated that termination of the franchise agreement would also terminate the sublease agreement. However, the subdistrict court does not follow this reasoning at all. The termination of the rental agreement does not comply with the legal provisions and is therefore not legally valid. The stipulations in the lease on which the franchisor relies are deviating stipulations that have not been approved in advance by the subdistrict court judge and are therefore null and void.
In its recently issued judgment, the subdistrict court also considers that, although the franchise agreement and the rental agreement state that agreements are inextricably linked and that the end of one agreement also ends the other, there is no question of a so-called mixed agreement, and that the legal rent regime would also have been set aside. After all, both agreements can also exist independently of each other.
A proper link in advance with approval by the subdistrict court judge might have led to a different judgment. It is also remarkable that the Supreme Court has followed the doctrine of mixed agreements in recent years. Lower case law, however, apparently assumes the mandatory tenancy regime in which the franchise agreement exists separately from the sublease agreement, so that the franchisee enjoys full rent protection.
Mr Th.R. Ludwig – Franchise lawyer
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice Would you like to respond? Mail to ludwig@ludwigvandam.nl
Other messages
Column Franchise + – mr. Th.R. Ludwig: “Towards strict liability”
The Supreme Court recently ruled in a prognosis issue.
Article in Entrance: “Rentals”
“The landlord increased the prices of the property every year, but he hasn't done this for 2 years, maybe he forgets. Can he still claim an overdue amount later?”
No valid appeal to non-compete clause in franchising
On 28 February 2017, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2017:1469, the provisional relief judge of the District Court of Gelderland ruled on whether a franchisee could be bound by a non-compete clause.
Structurally unsound revenue forecasts from the franchisor
On 15 March 2017, the District Court of Limburg ruled in eight similar judgments (including ECLI:NL:RBLIM:2017:2344) on the franchise agreements of various franchisees of the P3 franchise formula.
Franchisee obliged to cooperate with formula change?
On 24 March 2017, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2017:1860, the preliminary relief judge of the Amsterdam District Court once again considered the issue in which Intertoys wishes to convert Bart Smit's stores
Delivery stop by franchisor not allowed
On 9 February 2017, the preliminary relief judge of the District Court of Gelderland, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2017:1372, ruled that a franchisor had not fulfilled its obligation to supply the franchisee