Unreasonable compensation at the end of the franchise agreement – dated September 17, 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
This is stipulated in some franchise agreements the franchisee always owes the franchisor at least a certain amount of costs upon termination of the franchise agreement. On 20 August 2019, the Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal ruled, ECLI:NL:GHARL:2019:6745, that in the event that such costs are unreasonably onerous. The the departing franchisee therefore did not have to pay it.
The franchise agreement required the franchisee to always pay a minimum of € 5,400 in back-office costs upon termination of the franchise agreement. Franchisee has the annulment of this provision is invoked because it is considered general terms and conditions be considered and it would be unreasonably onerous (see Article 6:233, preamble and under a BW). The franchisee had argued that it back-office system was not functioning and that the height of the relevant costs are disproportionate to the actual costs. The franchisor had not contradicted this. That is why the court assumes that these costs for the franchisee upon termination of the franchise agreement is indeed unreasonably onerous, so the stipulation rightly nullified and the amount is not due on that ground.
It is not inconceivable that, if the franchisor had objected substantively to the unreasonable objection, the Court of Appeal would also have come to the same conclusion.
mr. AW Dolphijn – franchise lawyer
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice. Do you want to respond?
Go to dolphijn@ludwigvandam.nl
Other messages
Franchisor liable for forecasts from third parties – dated March 6, 2019 – mr. M. Munnik
According to settled case law, a franchisor acts unlawfully towards its franchisee when a franchisor independently conducts research in a careless manner and as a result...
The (hard) franchise agreement and duty of care qualified – WPNR 7226 (2019)
The government intends to include a legal regulation on franchising in the Civil Code to protect the weak position of the franchisee.
The municipality must allow temporary Albert Heijn
On 7 February 2019, the District Court of Noord-Holland ruled on whether the municipality should allow a temporary Albert Heijn
Franchisors may no longer impose changes to store hours – February 12, 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
At the end of 2018, a draft of the “Freedom of Choice for Retailers (Opening Hours) Act” was presented.
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.