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
HEMA in conflict with franchisees about e-commerce agreements
On 18 July 2018, the District Court of Amsterdam, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2018:5098, rendered a judgment in proceedings on the merits in which the franchisees were largely ruled in favor of e-commerce.
mr. J. Sterk about HEMA conflict in the FD 18 July 2018
mr. J. Sterk about HEMA conflict in the FD.
Column Franchise+ – “Legal Franchise Statistics 2018”
The Legal Franchise Statistics have been compiled for 10 years by Ludwig & Van Dam attorneys on the basis of all published judgments of judges.
Franchisor prohibits opening (franchise) company
A franchisor applied for interim measures to prohibit a franchisee from opening a franchisee's business.
Column Snack courier no. 8: “With 7 steps you comply with the privacy law”
Much has already been written about the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The law has been applicable since 25 May, but many companies have not yet had their privacy policy in order.
Forced to switch to a different franchise formula at the existing location?
If a franchise formula ceases to exist, for example if it is incorporated into another organization, the question may be whether the franchisee is also obliged to be incorporated into