The scope of an exclusive purchase clause in a franchise agreement
The case ruled by the Court of Appeal of ‘s-Hertogenbosch on 21 July 2015 (ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2015:2754) concerned a franchise agreement in which it was stipulated that the franchisee had to purchase at least 90%, under penalty of a fine.
The formula concerns the operation of a wholesale trade in hairdressing supplies. The franchisor argues that the franchisee does not comply with this obligation and takes the franchisee to court. The franchisee has developed (internet) activities under a different trade name. The question is whether these activities fall within the scope of the franchise agreement. The court finds that the franchise agreement itself does not indicate the scope and rules that the franchisor should not have expected that all activities in the field of hairdressing supplies would fall within the scope of the franchise agreement. The lack of clarity about the scope of the exclusive purchase clause is therefore held against the franchisor (contra proferentem).
Once again, this ruling shows the importance of a well-formulated franchise agreement. If there is any ambiguity about the interpretation, the franchise agreement can be interpreted to the detriment of the party that drafted the franchise agreement.
Mr AW Dolphijn – Franchise lawyer
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice. Do you want to respond? Mail to dolphijn@ludwigvandam.nl
Other messages
HEMA sentenced to suspend e-commerce contribution to franchisees
HEMA is in conflict with its franchisees about the contribution to e-commerce costs. HEMA believes that the existing scheme from 1997 is outdated.
Error or deception in the conclusion of the franchise agreement
A franchisee who regrets after entering into a franchise agreement may believe that before or at the conclusion of the franchise agreement by the franchisor ...
Supermarket letter – 21
Judge: Protect franchisee against supermarket organization (Coop) as lessor
The supplier prescribed by the franchisor is not performing? What now?
The Court of Appeal of 's-Hertogenbosch ruled on 20 February 2018, ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2018:727, on the question of who must prove that the franchisee was misled when entering into the
Judge: Protect franchisee against supermarket organization (Coop) as lessor
Does the franchisee need legal protection from supermarket franchisor Coop? The District Court of Rotterdam ruled on 9 February 2018, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2018:1151, that this is the case.
Acquisition fraud vs. error in franchise forecasting
Who has to prove that the franchisor's forecast is unsound? In principle, this is the franchisee. If the franchisee invokes the Acquisition Fraud Act, it may be that