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
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.