The municipality must allow temporary Albert Heijn
On 7 February 2019, the District Court of Noord-Holland ruled (ECLI:NL:RBNNE:2019:407) on whether the municipality should allow a temporary Albert Heijn now that the municipality had made commitments, but had not signed a lease. was with the municipality and the municipal policy had meanwhile been changed.
The municipality had already granted a permit to establish a temporary Albert Heijn supermarket. The municipality had also not only expressed a “willingness in principle” to cooperate in the relocation of the Albert Heijn supermarket to a temporary location and even invited it to conclude a lease for the location for the temporary supermarket. The municipality also took the position that, among other things, with the arrival of a “new” (changed in composition) municipal council, a new vision has emerged and that the realization of the temporary Albert Heijn supermarket is undesirable with the new policy insights.
The judge in preliminary relief proceedings ruled that the supermarket entrepreneur could and was entitled to derive a justified expectation that the municipality would also rent out the required location following the granting of an environmental permit. The municipality is ordered to conclude a lease.
mr. AW Dolphin – franchise lawyer
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice. Do you want to respond? Go to dolphijn@ludwigvandam.nl
Other messages
The (in)validity of a post-contractual non-competition clause in a franchise agreement: analogy with employment law?
On 5 September 2017, the District Court of Gelderland, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2017:4565, rendered a judgment on, among other things, the question of whether Bruna, as a franchisor, could invoke the prohibition for a
Column Franchise+ – mr. J Sterk: “Court orders fast food chain to extend franchise agreement
The case is set to begin this year. For years, the franchisee has been refusing to sign the new franchise agreement that was offered with renewal, as it would lead to a deterioration of his legal position
Not a valid non-compete clause for franchisee
On 18 November 2016, the interim relief judge of the Central Netherlands District Court, ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2016:7754, rendered a judgment in the issue concerning whether the franchisee was held
Franchise & Law No. 5 – Acquisition Fraud and Franchising Act
The Acquisition Fraud Act came into effect on 1 July 2016. This includes amendments to Section 6:194 of the Dutch Civil Code.
Does a franchisee have to accept a new model franchise agreement?
On 31 March 2017, the District Court of Rotterdam, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2017:2457, ruled in interlocutory proceedings on the question whether franchisor Bram Ladage had complied with the franchise agreement with its franchisee.
Mandatory (market-based) purchase prices for franchisees
To what extent can a franchisor change agreements about the (market) purchase prices of the goods that the franchisees are obliged to purchase?