The Dutch Supreme Court annuls a judgment of the Court of Appeal for error in market definition and lack of analysis of the franchise agreement’s restrictive object in the light of its context (Prisma Vastgoed, Prisma Food Retail / Verweerders)

In 1989, Prisma rented out a supermarket to the defendant. The rental agreement provided for an option to purchase the supermarket in favour of the defendant, which could be exercised on 30 April 2001. This agreement further provided that in case the defendant purchased the supermarket, it would be bound by a franchise agreement with Prisma, according to which it had to respect a given supermarket formula. Moreover, it was provided that the defendant could not terminate the franchise relationship without having to offer for sale the supermarket to Prisma (hereafter the ‘obligation to offer for sale'), which, in turn, benefited from an option to purchase. This franchise agreement was concluded for a period of ten years and was

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers

Already Subscribed? Sign-in

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers.

Read one article for free

Sign-up to read this article for free and discover our services.

 

PDF Version

Authors

  • European Commission - DG HR (Brussels)
  • European Court of Justice (Luxembourg)

Quotation

Tristan Baumé, Sally Janssen, The Dutch Supreme Court annuls a judgment of the Court of Appeal for error in market definition and lack of analysis of the franchise agreement’s restrictive object in the light of its context (Prisma Vastgoed, Prisma Food Retail / Verweerders), 18 December 2009, e-Competitions Franchising, Art. N° 30711

Visites 3092

All issues

  • Latest News issue 
  • All News issues
  • Latest Special issue 
  • All Special issues