1623- agreement (property law)

p.2 

Hi Anne,

It is an agreement between Gerrit Pietersz(en), pottery baker, and Willem Jansz(en) de Rijeuw, pottery decorator, both residing in the Molslaan in Delft. The content seems to imply that Gerrit buys out Willem; there is no specific reason mentioned for this in this deed, but it may be an act of buying out competition. Gerrit promises to pay to Willem an annual amount of 200 guilders each year for 8 consecutive years. This amount replaces the annual sum of 100 guilders agreed upon between these two men in a previous agreement, dated 7 May 1690. The first payment of the current agreement should be due in 1695 at the date of the annual fair in Rotterdam ('Rotterdamsche kermis'; this was usually celebrated on the first Sunday after Saint-Lambert's Day, Saint-Lambert being the patron saint of the town of Rotterdam, whose memorial day was each year on the 10th of August). The agreement also states that, in case Willem would die before he had fully completed all 8 annual payments, Gerrit would be obliged to complete these payments to Willem's heirs. In return, Willem promises to refrain from practicing his craftmanship during these 8 years. In case he would not keep this promise, Willem would be held io pay back any payments received from Gerrit.

A few corrections on the dates: the previous contract was dated 7 May 1619 (the new contract is from 30 Aug 1623); the first payment of the new contract was due in 1624.

It does not look like a buyout to me. It appears Willem works for Gerrit (which is why Gerrit pays him) and during the 8-year contract, Willem is not allowed to teach his art/craft to others or perform the same work for others. If he violates this arrangement, he has to repay Gerrit. After the 8-year contract is over, the restrictions for Willem no longer apply. At the same time, Gerrit will be allowed to continue using these consten (arts). This is not a regular labor contract as this is not just about the labor Willem provides; it is more like a non-disclosure and non-competition agreement. The key thing is the expertise (maybe a specific process or technique) that Willem brings to the business since it is something that Gerrit can continue to use after the end of the contract. If the contract was just about labor, this would not make sense. The contract does not explicitly say what special art was involved, but since Gerrit was the pottery baker and Willem the pottery decorator, it presumably involved some decoration technique. The original 1619 contract may provide more specifics.

Dear Rene and Marcel

Thank you both for your contributions to this text.

This is really interesting as to the events that followed.

As we now know Gerrit Pietersz died in September 1624 (as Rene explained, probably from the plague in Delft). Would this have released Willem Jansz from this contract? His wife Lisabeth took over the running of the factory after his death, but perhaps as the contract had been signed with her husband it wasn't valid with her.

In October 1624 we also discovered that the paint workshop of Lisabeth's factory (Porcelyne Schotel) where Willem Jansz worked and was manager of, was broken into (in which Willem Jansz is implicated) and the paint destroyed? Could this have been the 'special art' that Willem was responsible for?

Willem Jansz left Delft late 1624 to set up his own factory in Haarlem, presumbably taking his 'special art' with him?

I have located the contract from 1619 - I think, and will upload it later. Maybe that will tell us more.

warmest best wishes

Anne 

Anne,

Here is the full reflection of the record:

Gerrit Pietersz platielbacker (= pottery baker) and Willem Jansz de Rijeuw platielschrijver (= pottery decorator), both living on Molslaan in the city of Delft, have agreed that Willem Jansz will receive from Gerrit Pietersz for a time of eight years the sum of 200 guilders per year instead of the 100 guilders per year currently owed to Willem Jansz regarding the openbaren van de konst (= showing/revealing the art) to them [= Gerrit and his kin] per the previous contract dated 7 May 1619. The first payment is due at Rotterdamsche Kermis (= Rotterdam fair) 1624 and then every year onwards. If Willem Jansz were to die during the term of the contract, then Gerrit Pietersz will have to continue the payments to the widow and heirs of Willem Jansz. During these eight years, Willem Jansz is not allowed to show or teach anybody else in his art and craft, nor is he allowed to apply it himself in any way. After the eight years are over, these restrictions for Willem and his kin will end and he can do as he pleases without having to repay Gerrit Pietersz and his kin. Likewise, after these eight years, Gerrit Pietersz will be allowed to continue using the art without having to pay for it. The old contract is terminated. If Willem Jansz or his kin during the term of the contract share or reveal the art to others, they will have to repay all the money they have received under the new contract as well as the old contract. Each party personally guarantees the agreement to the other party. Signed 30 Aug 1623 by Gerrijdt Pijetersz and Willem Jansen de Rues.

While it does not say explicitly whether Gerrit's wife/children can continue this arrangement after he dies, the  dies (i.e. whether his widow/children can continue the arrangement), the fact that other places in the contract do speak about Gerrit and his kin, seems to imply that the contract was to be continued by his wife and heirs.

We still don't know exactly what special art/craft Willem brought to the table however, the fact that the word openbaren (= to reveal) is being used suggests this truly was some kind of trade secret. The contract seems to be a way to license the use of this trade secret, similar to how a patent would be monetized by its owner. It is not clear whether this is something that Willem had invented, in which case he might have been the only one to apply this certain technique or process. Another option is that this technique was known among pottery bakers in Willem's native town in Flanders or Wallonia, but not yet in Holland. However, if this were true then sure other migrants would be introducing the same technique, thus quickly minimizing the value of what Willem had to offer. Based on this, I assume it was something unique that Willem introduced.

Best,

Marcel