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
Alex Dolphijn in the Financial Dagblad about the judgment of the Supreme Court regarding Street-One
Franchisors more liable for incorrect forecasts Franchisees can now more easily hold their parent organization liable for incorrect profit and turnover forecasts.
Supermarket letter – 17
Supreme Court: More quickly liable for forecasts
Article in Entrance: “Small print”
“When I do business with a supplier, I never read the fine print. Recently I noticed that there are all kinds of things in it that I actually do not agree with.
Column Franchise+ – mr. Th.R. Ludwig: “Delivery stop by franchisor again not allowed”
Once again, the president in preliminary relief proceedings ruled on the question whether a franchisor's supply stop against the franchisee was permitted, with the franchisee paying a substantial
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.