Publication date: 24 June 2021
It is important to use clear and unambiguous language in agreements. This has once again been demonstrated by a recent judgement of the Supreme Court. Because of ambiguities in franchise agreements, franchisees of Albert Heijn may have lost millions.
What exactly the rights and obligations are of parties under an agreement depends on the interpretation of this agreement. Not only the text of an agreement plays a role in this but also various other circumstances. It must be considered, for example, what the parties have said to each other during negotiations, which intentions they have and what their negotiation position is. It is also important how the parties have implemented the agreement. Generally speaking, the clearer and more unambiguous the wording of the agreement, the less likely it is that additional circumstances will have to be taken into account in the interpretation.
A lot can depend on the interpretation of an agreement. Based on the interpretation, the parties will have to perform the agreement. This may sometimes lead to disputes. As, for example, in the following case:
Albert Heijn has concluded a large number of franchise agreements allowing franchisees to operate an Albert Heijn shop. These agreements contain unclear terms on the basis of which the financial settlement of the parties takes place. These terms include, for instance, ‘tax price’, ‘undistributed margins’ and ‘action discount result’.
The franchisees complain that Albert Heijn has wrongly used these stipulations to their detriment. As a result of this, the franchisees would have missed out on income. Albert Heijn relies on the fact that it interpreted the stipulations in the same way the accountants, including those of the franchisees, applied them when carrying out the financial settlement.
The Amsterdam Court of Appeal did not go along with the complaints of the franchisees. It ruled that the interpretation of the agreements as given by the accountants could be attributed to the parties.
The Supreme Court disagrees. The fact that the accountants of Albert Heijn and those of the franchisees agreed on the interpretation and application of the unclear terms, does not mean that the franchisees agreed to this interpretation. Also, the franchisees must be given the opportunity to prove their intentions on concluding the agreement by means of witnesses.
The Supreme Court refers the case to The Hague Court of Appeal. It will have to judge whether Albert Heijn has indeed paid too little to the franchisees.
In the case described above, the franchisees’ income depends on the interpretation of the franchise agreement of Albert Heijn. The fact that such a confusion could have arisen was due, among other things, to unclear wording in the franchise agreements. The judgement is therefore a good reminder to be clear and unambiguous in the wording of agreements and to seek legal assistance if necessary. This way, misunderstandings and thus legal proceedings with witness examinations can be avoided.
Do you have any questions regarding a franchise agreement? Or would you like us draw up a franchise agreement or check a standard agreement? We are also happy to help you in the event of a dispute or regarding the interpretation of a franchise agreement. Please contact us:
In this article, we will discuss several questions and challenges in the field of Dutch employment law, tenancy law and contract law during COVID-19.read on
Do the new rules of the Supreme Court for the assessment of employment contracts also have consequence for management agreements? Case law has not decided yet. This can be seen from the judgments of the Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal and the District Court of Midden-Nederland about the management agreement of the CFO of Volksbank.read on
If your employee reports sick, this may raise many difficult questions. What are your reintegration obligations during the sick leave period? What are you allowed to record about your sick employee with regard to the privacy legislation? We answered these and other questions during a webinar. Watch the video!read on
Proceedings do not always have to be in court. There are other ways to resolve legal disputes. An important and often also appealing alternative is arbitration. In particular if you are doing business internationally. What are the advantages of arbitration?read on
Russell Advocaten has for the 17th consecutive year in a row been included in The Legal 500. We are pleased with the recognition for the quality of our legal services by experts and clients. Please read what they say about us:read on
We have hosted a special webinar “COVID-19: Reorganization, Job Loss & Stay” in cooperation with IN Amsterdam on 23 March. During the webinar, we discussed issues that employers and international employees face due to the impact of the coronavirus. Watch the video today!read on