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
Alex Dolphijn in the Financial Dagblad about the judgment of the Supreme Court regarding Street-One
Franchisors more liable for incorrect forecasts Franchisees can now more easily hold their parent organization liable for incorrect profit and turnover forecasts.
Supermarket letter – 17
Supreme Court: More quickly liable for forecasts
Article in Entrance: “Small print”
“When I do business with a supplier, I never read the fine print. Recently I noticed that there are all kinds of things in it that I actually do not agree with.
Column Franchise+ – mr. Th.R. Ludwig: “Delivery stop by franchisor again not allowed”
Once again, the president in preliminary relief proceedings ruled on the question whether a franchisor's supply stop against the franchisee was permitted, with the franchisee paying a substantial
The manager (employee) who becomes a franchisee – fictitious employment?
On 14 December 2016, the subdistrict court judge of the District Court of Noord-Holland, ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2016:11031 (Employee/Espresso Lounge), considered the situation in which an employee
The Supreme Court sets strict requirements for franchise forecasts
A ruling by the Supreme Court on Friday casts a new light on the provision of profit and turnover forecasts to aspiring franchisees.