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
Infringement of exclusive service area by franchisor in connection with formula change dated February 27, 2017
On 30 January 2017, the provisional relief judge of the District Court of Noord-Holland, ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2017:688 (Intertoys/franchisee), was asked how to deal with the
Forecasts at startup franchise formula
The Amsterdam Court of Appeal ruled on 14 February 2017, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:455 (Tot Straks/franchisee) on the question whether the franchisor had provided an unsatisfactory prognosis and whether the
Mandatory transfer of franchise business to franchisor?
On January 23, 2017, the District Court of Amsterdam, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2017:412 (CoffeeCompany/Dam Spirit BV) rendered a judgment on the question whether a franchisee upon termination of the cooperation
Transfer customer data to franchisor
In its judgment of 10 January 2017, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:68 (OnlineAccountants.nl), the Amsterdam Court ruled, among other things, on the question of how customer data should be transferred.
Franchise Closing Sale – Who Gets the Sale Proceeds?
The judgment of the District Court of the Northern Netherlands dated 12 October 2016, ECLI:NL:RBNNE:2016:5061 (Administrator/Expert Group and Rabobank), focused on the question whether the franchisor, together with the bank,
Column Franchise+ – mr. Th.R. Ludwig: “Judge: franchisor’s duty of care comparable to that of a bank”
Various judgments in 2016 made it clear how high the standard of care for a franchisor towards its franchisees is.