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
The manager (employee) who becomes a franchisee – fictitious employment?
On 14 December 2016, the subdistrict court judge of the District Court of Noord-Holland, ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2016:11031 (Employee/Espresso Lounge), considered the situation in which an employee
The Supreme Court sets strict requirements for franchise forecasts
A ruling by the Supreme Court on Friday casts a new light on the provision of profit and turnover forecasts to aspiring franchisees.
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.