Sale tactics and lawsuits
There are a lot of websites, forums and blogs that warn for Proximedia. This is because of the long duration of the contract, the inability to terminate the contract and the alleged aggressive approach of Proximedia and the alleged low quality of service that Proximedia offers. Also, there are a lot of lawsuits every month, some of which are customers that wish to terminate the contract, others that allege Proximedia of misguiding.
List of some example lawsuits:
Mitigation of contractual termination compensation on the basis of article 6:248 paragraph 2 of the Dutch Civil Code
A clause on the basis of which a termination fee is claimed can be considered a penalty clause. Mitigation of the penalty based on article 6:94 of the Dutch Civil Code?
Performance claim rejected; successful appeal to breach of contract; dissolution; restitution claim awarded.
Agreement for IT services. Contents of the agreement. No reflex effect of the Door-to-Door Sales Act for small entrepreneurs. Implementation Act of the Consumer Rights Directive. Breach of contract? Unreasonably onerous clause?
Read the full text
Cassation: ECLI:NL:HR:2016:996, (Partial) annulment with referral. Final judgment: ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2014:4228
Error. Reflex effect of the unfair commercial practices law? Compelling evidentiary force of written agreement.
(No summary provided by court)
Proximedia case. No valid defense against the claim concerning a number of monthly invoices. Article 7.1 of the agreement (containing a termination fee) is a general term in the sense of article 6:231 introductory text and under a of the Dutch Civil Code. No "reflex effect" of article 6:237 introductory text and under i of the Dutch Civil Code. Insufficiently argued why article 7.1 would be unreasonably onerous in the sense of article 6:233 of the Dutch Civil Code and that granting the claim would be unacceptable according to standards of reasonableness and fairness. Termination fee is not a penalty in the sense of article 6:91 of the Dutch Civil Code.
A retailer (sole proprietorship) is approached by a representative of a company and enters into an "agreement for IT services" with a term of four years, which includes a dissolution fee of 60% of the not yet due monthly payments. The retailer is instructed to prove that, at the time of entering the agreement, the company promised him that he could terminate the agreement without any further obligations if he terminated his business. The retailer is considered to have succeeded in the burden of proof, and the company's claim for payment of the dissolution fee is rejected.
