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
Incorrect prognosis due to lack of location research
The District Court of The Hague ruled on 21 March 2018, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2018:3348, that a franchisor's forecast was unsound, as a result of which the franchisee had erred and the franchisor
Column Franchise+ – “Disputes about franchise fees”
Lately, it has also hit the biggest franchise organizations in the Netherlands. At the formulas of Albert Heijn, Hema, Etos, Bruna and Olympia, for example, there was and will be a lot
Ludwig & Van Dam sponsor of the Franchise Trophy 2018
On May 24, 2018, VVD member of parliament Martin Wörsdörfer and ID&T founder Duncan Stutterheim will present the Franchise Trophy 2018 on behalf of the Dutch Franchise Association.
Column Franchise+ – “Flashing quarrels about franchise fee must stop”
Lately, it has also hit the biggest franchise organizations in the Netherlands. At the formulas of Albert Heijn, HEMA, Etos, Bruna and Olympia, for example, there was and will be a lot
Circumvent post non-compete clause in franchising
On 3 April 2018, the Court of Appeal of Arnhem-Leeuwarden, ECLI:NL:GHARL:2018:3128, overturned an interim injunction of the District Court of Gelderland on competitive activities.
Column Franchise+ – “Prohibition of sales via internet platforms in franchise agreement exempt from cartel prohibition”
At the end of last year, Thuisbezorgd.nl incurred the wrath of many meal delivery companies by announcing another rate increase. The standard rate of Thuisbezorgd.nl thus reached a