In the event of conflicting laws, which law prevails for a Best Brains franchise?

According to the 2025 Best Brains Franchise Disclosure Document, the provisions of the Washington Franchise Investment Protection Act, chapter 19.100 RCW, will prevail in the event of a conflict of laws. This means that if there is a disagreement or inconsistency between different legal requirements, the specific laws in the Washington Franchise Investment Protection Act will take precedence. This is particularly relevant for Best Brains franchisees operating in Washington state.

Additionally, RCW 19.100.180, also known as the Franchisee Bill of Rights, may supersede provisions in the franchise agreement or related agreements concerning the franchisee's relationship with Best Brains, including areas like termination and renewal. Court decisions may also override the franchise agreement. Franchise agreement provisions, including those summarized in Item 17 of the Franchise Disclosure Document, are subject to state law.

For franchisees in Wisconsin, the Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law takes precedence over any conflicting terms in the Disclosure Document. This law provides significant protections, prohibiting termination, cancellation, non-renewal, or substantial changes to the competitive circumstances of a dealership agreement without good cause, and requires a 90-day prior written notice with a 60-day cure period. Similarly, for franchisees in Hawaii and Rhode Island, the Hawaii Franchise Investment Law and the Rhode Island Franchise Investment Act will control if there are inconsistencies with the terms of the Disclosure Document.

For Best Brains franchisees in California, the franchise agreement requires application of the laws of Illinois, but this may not be enforceable under California law. Additionally, any covenant not to compete that extends beyond the termination of the franchise may also not be enforceable in California. Furthermore, California Corporations Code §31512 voids any waiver of rights under the Franchise Investment Law, and Business and Professions Code §20010 voids any waiver of rights under the Franchise Relations Act. Similarly, in North Dakota, any waiver of punitive damages will not apply to North Dakota franchisees, and any requirement that the franchisee sign a Release upon renewal of the franchise agreement does not apply under North Dakota law.