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
Which court for a rental and franchise agreement?
Which court is competent to rule on a related rental and franchise agreement?
Interview Franchise+ – mrs. J. Sterk and AW Dolphijn – “Reversal burden of proof in forecasts honored by court”
The new Acquisition Fraud Act indeed appears to be relevant for the franchise industry, according to this article from Franchise+.
Franchisor convicted under the Acquisition Fraud Act
For the first time, a court has ruled, with reference to the Acquisition Fraud Act, that if a franchisee claims that the franchisor has presented an unsatisfactory prognosis
Agreements Related to the Franchise Agreement
On 31 October 2017, the Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal issued similar judgments for nineteen franchisees (ECLI:NL:GHARL:2017:9453 through ECLI:NL:GHARL:2017:9472).
Column Franchise+ – mr. J. Sterk – “Franchisee does body check better than franchise check”
A gym embarks on a franchise concept that offers “Body Checks” and discounts to (potential) members in collaboration with health insurers.
Seminar Mrs. J. Sterk and M. Munnik – Thursday, November 2, 2017: “Important legal developments for franchisors”
Attorneys Jeroen Sterk and Maaike Munnik of Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten will update you on the status of and developments surrounding the Dutch Franchise Code and the Acquisition Fraude Act.