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
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.