The set-off defense and the termination of the franchise agreement for an indefinite period
On 29 September 2015, the Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal (ECLI:NL:GHARL:2015:7296) ruled on whether the franchisor could terminate the franchise agreement for an indefinite period.
The franchisee argued that there was no payment arrears because the franchisee still had setoffable claims against the franchisor. The Court of Appeal established that this set-off claim was (largely) not (yet) due and payable at the time when the franchisor’s claim against the franchisee was due and payable. There was therefore a shortcoming in the fulfillment of the franchisee’s obligations under the franchise agreement.
Now that there is an attributable shortcoming, the franchise agreement stipulates that the franchise agreement can be terminated. The Court reasoned that the presence of a compelling ground is not a requirement for a valid termination of the franchise agreement. In its judgment of 28 October 2011 (ECLI:NL:HR:2011:BQ9854), the Supreme Court ruled that a continuing performance contract that has been entered into for an indefinite period (if the law and contract do not provide for a termination arrangement) can, in principle, be terminated , on the understanding that the requirements of reasonableness and fairness in connection with the nature and content of the agreement and the circumstances of the case may mean that cancellation is only possible if there are sufficiently compelling grounds for cancellation. However, that situation does not arise here, if only because it is not in dispute between the parties that the franchise agreement, on the basis of the provisions of the franchise agreement, can be terminated immediately if the franchisee has not fulfilled its obligations, according to the Court of Appeal.
The conclusion is that although the franchisee had a counterclaim against the franchisor, this counterclaim was not yet due and payable, so that the franchisor could terminate the franchise agreement at that time because the franchisor did have a due and payable claim against the franchisee.
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
Ludwig & Van Dam attorneys summon Sandd and PostNL on behalf of the Sandd franchisees – dated 9 January 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Association of Franchisees of Sandd (VFS) has today summoned Sandd and PostNL before the court in Arnhem. The VFS believes that Sandd and PostNL are letting the franchisees down hard.
Article The National Franchise Guide: “Why joint and several liability, for example, next to private?” – dated 7 January 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
Franchisees are often asked to co-sign the franchise agreement in addition to their franchise, for example. Sometimes franchisees refuse to do so and the franchise agreement is not signed.
Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten assists Sandd franchisees: Franchisees Sandd challenge postal monopoly in court – dated 12 November 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Association of Franchisees of Sandd (VFS) is challenging the decision of State Secretary Mona Keijzer to approve the postal merger between PostNL and Sandd before the court in Rotterdam.
Franchisee trapped by non-compete clause? – dated October 21, 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
The District Court of East Brabant has ruled that a franchisee was still bound by the non-competition clause in the event of premature termination of the franchise agreement.
Supermarket letter – 26
Supermarket Newsletter No. 26
Link franchise agreement and rental agreement uncertain? – dated October 14, 2019 – mr K. Bastiaans
It is no exception within a franchise relationship that the parties agree that the franchise agreement and the rental agreement are inextricably linked.