A(n) (un)clear termination clause in your (franchise) contract makes the difference

Contract Law

25 September 2023

A(n) (un)clear termination clause in your (franchise) contract makes the difference

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?

What was it actually about?

In recent preliminary relief proceedings, the court ruled that the former franchisee had validly terminated the franchise agreement and had not acted in breach of the non-compete clause by starting up a driving school for tractors. The franchisee had given notice in November 2022, effective May 2023, by email, observing a 6-month notice period. The franchise related to driving-school activities for obtaining a car or motorcycle licence. The franchisee subsequently started a tractor driving school. The franchisor disagreed with this too, considering it to be in breach of the agreed non-compete clause. The franchisor took the position that notice could only have been given as of the end of the agreed term of 24 months, i.e. not before 1 January 2023.

How did the court (in preliminary relief proceedings) rule on the termination?

The court ruled that this had not been explicitly agreed in the franchise agreement in that way. All it said was that the agreement after expiry of the term would be tacitly extended by two years, unless notice had been given.

If the franchisor had really intended it that way, it would have been up to the franchisor to state this explicitly in its franchise agreement. This mistake is for the account of the franchisor as the drafter of the franchise agreement.

The franchise agreement further provided that termination had to take place by registered letter and observing a notice period of six months. The franchisor relied on this too.

The court further ruled that a notice of termination can, in principle, be given in any form, and that although it had been agreed that termination should be sent by registered post, this is not set in stone. After all, the purpose is that greater certainty can be obtained that the franchisor takes note of the termination, but because it had already been established that the franchisor had taken note of the termination, the court nevertheless held the termination to be valid.

Was the non-compete clause breached or not?

The non-compete clause provided that, after the end of the franchise agreement, the former franchisee was not permitted, for a period of three months, to offer competing or identical services in the territory that were harmful to the franchise chain. The question now was whether the franchisee breached this clause by operating a tractor driving school.

The court ruled that, since the franchisor did not offer tractor driving lessons and the franchisee, conversely, did not offer the driving lessons that the franchisor gave (car or motorcycle licence), there was no question of the franchisee providing ‘the same services and supplies that are harmful to the franchise chain’. The court found it decisive that the non-compete clause requires as a condition that the services be harmful to the franchise chain, and that this was not the case here because the franchisor itself did not offer tractor driving lessons.

Conclusion

The way in which you formulate provisions in a (franchise) agreement is crucial to what you are pursuing and intending to achieve. Termination clauses come in many colours and flavours and are not standard provisions! It really requires bespoke drafting that you, as a contracting party, must always think through very consciously. Seek advice on this so that your intention is actually achieved through an unmistakably clear formulation of the clause.

The same applies to the non-compete clause. There, an additional element also comes into play, namely that the Dutch Franchise Act sets statutory requirements for the non-compete clause. These include the requirement that the clause must be indispensable to protect the know-how transferred by the franchisor. So when drafting an agreement, statutory requirements sometimes apply as well, from which one may not simply deviate. If you do, it may later turn out that such an arrangement is not even valid.

Expertise in drafting agreements is therefore also important — get help from legal experts. The Legal Company has experience in drafting agreements of a wide variety of kinds. Call or email us if you need an agreement drafted or reviewed. You can contact us via 020 345 0152 or info@thelegalcompany.nl

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.