Unlawful termination of dealer agreement
Court of Appeal in The Hague
The Court of Appeal in The Hague recently ruled in a case in which an importer and distributor of a car brand had terminated an agreement with one of its dealers. The cancellation in itself is not contested by the dealer. During the term of the agreement, the dealer starts a dealership for another car brand and informs the terminating importer and distributor of the first car brand about this in writing. Shortly afterwards, the first car brand terminated the dealer agreement on the grounds that the dealer had not complied with the contractual requirements for the use of separate sales space. The dealer denies that this is contrary to the concluded agreement.
The parties litigate in court, after which an appeal is lodged with the court. It ruled that the activity of the dealer to start a second car brand is not in conflict with the previously concluded agreement and that the dealer suffered damage for several reasons. This damage was caused, among other things, by the car brand cutting off the lines of communication, appointing a new dealer, and the fact that the car brand provided the new dealer with promotional material that enabled the latter to function as a new dealer.
With regard to the extent of the damage, the Court of Appeal also considers the necessary and in this case refers the case back to the docket.
The wrongful termination could have been prevented if the parties had carefully consulted about the scope of the new activities in relation to the existing dealership and perhaps had made good agreements in this regard. The dealer has now been disadvantaged by cancellation, which turned out to be unjustified and unlawful.
Mr Th.R. Ludwig – Franchise lawyer
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice Would you like to respond? Mail to ludwig@ludwigvandam.nl
Other messages
When does a franchisor go too far when recruiting franchisees?
The judgment of the Court of Appeal of Arnhem-Leeuwarden on 5 February 2019 dealt with whether the franchisor had acted impermissibly when recruiting the franchisees.
Advisory Board on Regulatory Pressure (ATR) advises State Secretary Keijzer about the Franchise Act
In short, it is first advised to actively inform franchisors and franchisees about this amendment to the law.
Post non-competition ban on services and sales franchise
When a franchise agreement ends, many franchisees encounter a prohibition in the franchise agreement to perform similar work for a period of time thereafter
The concept of the Franchise Act: impact for franchisors and franchisees – dated February 5, 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten believes that if the draft of the Franchise Act actually becomes law, a lot will change for franchisors and franchisees.
Buy franchise business and the laid off sick employee from 7 years ago
The question is whether a Bruna franchisee, when selling the franchise company to Bruna, should have stated that seven years ago an employee had left employment sick.
Court prohibits Domino’s unilateral area reduction when extending franchise agreements – dated January 28, 2019 – mr. RCWL Albers
On January 9, 2019, the District Court of Rotterdam rendered a judgment in a lawsuit initiated by the Association of Domino's Pizza Franchisees and all its members (almost all Domino's franchisees).