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
Does a franchisee have to accept a new model franchise agreement?
On 31 March 2017, the District Court of Rotterdam, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2017:2457, ruled in interlocutory proceedings on the question whether franchisor Bram Ladage had complied with the franchise agreement with its franchisee.
Mandatory (market-based) purchase prices for franchisees
To what extent can a franchisor change agreements about the (market) purchase prices of the goods that the franchisees are obliged to purchase?
Director’s liability of a franchisee after failing to rely on an unsound prognosis.
On 11 July 2017, the Court of Appeal of 's-Hertogenbosch made a decision on whether the franchisor could successfully sue the director of a BV for non-compliance with the
Liability accountant for prepared prognosis?
In a judgment of the Court of Appeal of 's-Hertogenbosch of 11 July 2017, ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2017:3153, it was discussed that franchisees accused the franchisor's accountant of being liable
How far does the bank’s duty of care extend?
Some time ago the question was raised in case law what the position of the bank is in the triangular relationship franchisor – bank – franchisee.
Burden of proof reversal in forecasting as misleading advertising?
In an interlocutory judgment of 15 June 2017, the District Court of Zeeland-West-Brabant, ECLI:NL:RBZWB:2017:3833, ruled on a claim for (among other things) suspension of the non-compete clause.