Unreasonable compensation at the end of the franchise agreement – dated September 17, 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin

By Published On: 17-09-2019Categories: Statements & current affairsTags:

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

Duty of care franchisor in the pre-contractual phase

The District Court of Limburg ruled on 6 April 2017, ECLI:NL:RBLIM:2016:2843, that the franchisor has a duty of care towards the prospective franchisee in the pre-contractual phase.

Franchisee avoids joint and several liability in private

In a judgment of 28 March 2018, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2018:2913, the District Court of Rotterdam ruled on the meaning of the clause in the franchise agreement stipulating that

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

By Alex Dolphijn|09-04-2018|Categories: Dispute settlement, Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , |

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

By Alex Dolphijn|09-04-2018|Categories: Dispute settlement, Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , |
Go to Top