Uitspraak
AMSTERDAM DISTRICT COURT
5 July 2023
1.Procedural history
2.Facts – background
3.Claim and counterclaim
Claim
4.Discussion
Jurisdiction and applicable law
- What this shows is that whereas the contracts after 2013 lapsed automatically at a certain predetermined date, the parties generally did not conclude a new agreement until months after the expiration date. In consequence of this, there was no reason for Duomed to have to anticipate that any agreement would lapse instantly by virtue of law.
- However, Duomed also knew - on the basis of a express stipulation to that effect in the fixed term contracts - that “neither party shall be entitled to a new agreement”. This means that Duomed could have known that there could arise a time when Fujifilm did not want to enter into a new agreement. It could not simply rely on the long-lasting relationship, as this relationship was significantly changed by the fixed-term contracts concluded after 2013.
- In its e-mail dated 19 December 2022 (para. 2.6), Fujifilm conveyed to Duomed its discontent with Duomed not meeting its targets and referred to the expiration date. However, it also indicated that it wished to initiate talks on the next steps. This e-mail does not qualify as a warning that Fujifilm did not want to conclude a new agreement. Discontent with a distributor in itself does not preclude conducting negotiations on a new distribution agreement.
- Fujifilm argues that at the very least Duomed should have been aware of Fujifilm’s intentions after the phone call with Duomed employees on 1 February 2023. [Fujifilm’s representative] is alleged to have mentioned explicitly that it was highly unlikely “that we could continue due to ongoing concerns”. Duomed disputes the contents of this phone call. But even if Fujifilm made this statement to Duomed on 1 February 2023, it does not constitute an unequivocal warning, nor a timely warning, that no new agreement would be concluded.
- During a meeting on 8 March 2023, only 3 weeks prior to the expiration date, Fujifilm expressly stated that its intention was not to renew the Distribution Agreement 2021. This is too late for Duomed to ensure a smooth transition for its existing customers and to mitigate the impact of the end of the distribution relationship. In its e-mail dated 10 March 2023, which included the letter confirming its intentions (para. 2.7), Fujifilm did make a ‘soft landing’ proposal, but Duomed could not be expected to respond to this proposal in a situation where it was blindsided by the abrupt end of the distribution relationship.