Facts
The case concerns a franchise agreement between Y. R. AG as the franchisor and Marie-Therese B. as the franchisee. The agreement provided for a turnover-dependent usage fee, which Y. R. AG later wanted to increase from 1% to 7% of the turnover. When Marie-Therese B. refused to accept the increase, Y. R. AG terminated the contract without notice. Marie-Therese B. then filed a counterclaim for compensation due to abusive termination.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court qualified the contract as a franchise agreement and found that the rental or lease element in it was of only subordinate importance. Therefore, the provisions on the termination of rental and lease agreements were not applicable.
However, the Federal Supreme Court recognized that Marie-Therese B. was in a similar relationship of dependence on Y. R. AG as an employee to their employer. Therefore, the analogous application of labor law protection provisions, in particular the law on termination, was justified.
The Federal Supreme Court…