The franchise formula as the destination of the rented property
The Amsterdam Court of Appeal recently ruled on the question of whether a rental agreement can be dissolved and the rented property should be vacated, because the renting franchisee acted contrary to the destination clause in the rental agreement. That clause prescribed use of the leased property according to the franchise formula. See: http://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inziendocument?id=ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2013:4913&keyword=franchise
The tenant, who is also the franchisee, defended himself against the claims, arguing, among other things, that the formula in practice deviated strongly from what had been agreed in writing at the time.
The Court of Appeal has established that a franchise formula is usually subject to development, and that this is all the more true in this case since the lessee is the formula’s first and only franchisee. The franchise agreement also stipulates that the franchisee is obliged to cooperate in the further development of the formula. The Court of Appeal ruled that it can be argued against the franchisee that he violated the destination clause in the rental agreement because he did not meet the essential characteristics of the formula.
It follows from this ruling that franchisees should be vigilant when interpreting the franchise formula, especially if the formula is relatively new and under development. Franchisors would do well to include a clause in the rental agreement that the tenant is obliged to use the formula, as well as that the tenant is obliged to cooperate in the further development of the formula.
Mr AW Dolphin – Franchise attorney
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys,franchise legal advice. Do you want to respond? Mail to dolphijn@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