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
![231accountancy-min](https://www.ludwigvandam.nl/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/231accountancy-min.jpg)
Other messages
Attorneys Ludwig & Van Dam look back on transition process C1000
Attorneys Ludwig & Van Dam look back on transition process C1000
Court of Appeal upholds misrepresentation and wrongful conduct in the event of an unsatisfactory prognosis
The franchisee claimed annulment of the franchise agreement on the grounds of error, because the franchisor allegedly presented an unsatisfactory prognosis.
Directors’ Liability Concerning Franchising: Deception or Collaboration Plan
Directors' Liability Concerning Franchising: Deception or Collaboration Plan
Jumbo completes the C1000 conversion operation in more than 1100 days
Jumbo completes the C1000 conversion operation in more than 1100 days
Secretly another franchisee? Explanation contra proferentem
On March 4, 2015, the Court of Appeal of The Hague issued a judgment on whether the franchisee should have been changed.
A property owner and Plus have agreed that Plus will rent a supermarket location, but may only use it as a supermarket, stating ‘Plus Market’ in parentheses.
A property owner and Plus have agreed that Plus will rent a supermarket location, but may only use it as a supermarket, stating 'Plus Market' in parentheses.