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
Goodwill at end of franchise agreement
In a case before the Amsterdam Court of Appeal on 26 September 2017, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:3900 (Seal & Go), a franchisee claimed compensation for goodwill (ex Article 7:308 of the Dutch Civil Code) after the
Article in Entrance: “Resignation”
Fire an employee who is not performing well? The subdistrict court is strict. If you, as an employer, cannot demonstrate that you have done everything yourself to make the person function better, it will be
Cost price that is too high as a hidden franchise fee
An interlocutory judgment of the District Court of The Hague dated 30 August 2017, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2017:10597 (Happy Nurse) shows that the court has considered the question whether the
Supermarket letter – 19
Coop liability for damages due to non-performance towards the franchisee
Damage estimate after wrongful termination of the franchise agreement by the franchisor
In a judgment of the Supreme Court of 15 September 2017, ECLI:NL:HR:2017:2372 (Franchisee/Coop), it was discussed that supermarket organization Coop had not complied with agreements, as a result of which the franchisee
Franchisor is obliged to extend the franchise agreement
On 6 September 2017, the Rotterdam District Court ruled, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2017:6975 (Misty / Bram Ladage), that the refusal to extend a franchise agreement by a franchisor