The power of good contracting as an IT party

Contract Law

26 September 2024

The power of good contracting as an IT party

Stelt u zich eens voor: u werkt al jaren met dezelfde zelfstandige. Hij stuurt facturen, factureert btw en heeft een eigen kvk-nummer. Toch krijgt u in 2026 ineens vragen van de Belastingdienst over de aard van uw samenwerking. Hoe heeft het zo ver kunnen komen?

In July 2024, the court ruled on a case between Rohecom and Dipi, two companies that have been linked by a software license agreement since 2009. This ruling is particularly relevant for IT companies, especially those dealing with license agreements and maintenance obligations. The ruling highlights important issues surrounding termination, tacit renewals, and the conditions for ending maintenance agreements.

The essence of the case

Rohecom, a supplier of the “Unishop” software package, had entered into a non-exclusive license agreement with Dipi in 2009. A maintenance agreement was also part of this arrangement. Rohecom developed the software itself and is also required to maintain it periodically. It was contractually agreed that the maintenance agreement would automatically be tacitly renewed for successive five-year terms, unless the agreement was terminated three months before the end of a five-year term.

In October 2022, Dipi discontinued use of the software and claimed that the agreement no longer matched the company’s operational needs. It stated that the software was outdated and no longer adequately supported. Rohecom, on the other hand, argued that the termination of the maintenance agreement came too late and that Dipi was still obliged to pay maintenance costs until October 2024. Rohecom then went to court and claimed performance of the agreement. The key question in this case was whether Dipi had legitimately terminated the agreement, and whether it was still liable for maintenance costs despite its termination.

Irregular termination; must the customer pay costs until the end of the term?

Dipi argued that it had lawfully terminated the agreement and that, from January 2023 onward, it no longer had to pay maintenance costs. This position was based on the interpretation of a provision in the maintenance agreement stating that, upon termination of the right of use, the maintenance agreement would end on the “next expiry date”. According to Dipi, this meant that the agreement would lapse within a few months of the termination. The court rejected this interpretation. According to the court, the term “next expiry date” did not refer to the monthly payment terms, but to the end of the five-year contract period. The agreement could therefore not end in January 2023, but only on 2 October 2024. This meant that Dipi simply had to keep paying the maintenance costs to Rohecom until the end of the term.

The length of the renewal period: reasonable or unduly burdensome?

Dipi further argued that a tacit renewal of five years was disproportionate and therefore voidable. In a world where technological progress moves quickly, Dipi felt that a five-year contract was not reasonable for a small business.

And what did the court think?

Although the court acknowledged that five years is a long term, Dipi’s argument was rejected. The court found that the long term was justified by Rohecom’s interest in having stable contracts, given the significant investments involved in software development. In addition, it took into account that Dipi had already agreed to the renewal of the agreement several times before.

Our tip

For IT companies entering into long-term license or maintenance agreements, it is important to look carefully at the arrangements regarding:

the duration (fixed term or indefinite term),
the right to terminate (whether or not there is an interim right to terminate),
the notice period,
the consequences of termination (e.g. for ongoing third-party licenses),
and the renewal clauses.

What really matters here is using the right wording so that all parties have clarity about the duration and the end of the various terms. That is, and remains, specialist work. Get advice from a lawyer on this. It always pays off.

Do you need help with the above? The business lawyers of The Legal Company are ready to help you. Contact us via info@thelegalcompany.nl or call 020 345 0152.

De afgelopen jaren stonden in het teken van de Wet VBAR, het wetsvoorstel dat een einde moest maken aan onduidelijkheid over de zzp’er. Het kabinet heeft delen van dat voorstel inmiddels geschrapt. Op het eerste gezicht is dat goed nieuws: minder regels, minder administratieve last. Maar in de praktijk blijven dezelfde toetsen overeind.

“De inhoud van de samenwerking is leidend, niet wat er op papier staat.”

De Belastingdienst handhaaft sinds 1 januari 2025 weer actief op schijnzelfstandigheid. En recente uitspraken van de Hoge Raad bevestigen dat rechters strikt toetsen of er sprake is van ondergeschiktheid en gezagsverhouding.

Voor uw praktijk betekent dit drie dingen. Een: leg de samenwerking duidelijk vast, met aandacht voor de inhoud. Twee: voorkom dat een zzp’er feitelijk werkt als werknemer. Drie: wees voorbereid op een controle, en weet hoe u de relatie kunt herzien als dat moet.

Heeft u vragen over uw concrete situatie? Wij sparren dagelijks met opdrachtgevers over hun zzp-relaties. Vraag een offerte op of bekijk onze Legal Safe abonnementen.