In the event of conflicting laws, which law prevails for a Beyond Juicery Eatery franchise?

According to the 2025 Beyond Juicery Eatery Franchise Disclosure Document, the specific law that prevails in the event of a conflict depends on the location of the franchise and the agreement in question. For instance, the standard assignment agreement specifies that it "shall be construed according to the laws of the state in which the premises are located." Furthermore, if any part of the assignment agreement conflicts with applicable law, then that applicable law will take precedence, and the conflicting provision will be considered void to the extent that it violates the law. The remaining terms of the assignment, however, will stay in effect.

For franchisees in certain states like California, Washington, New York, Indiana, Hawaii and Illinois, the FDD includes specific addenda that address potential conflicts with state laws. These addenda generally state that if any term in the Franchise Agreement or Area Development Agreement is inconsistent with the respective state's franchise laws, then the state law will govern. This ensures that franchisees' rights under these state laws are protected. The addenda also often clarify specific sections of the franchise agreement that may not be enforceable under state or federal law, such as those related to termination upon bankruptcy, non-compete clauses, and venue for litigation or arbitration.

This means that prospective Beyond Juicery Eatery franchisees need to be aware of the specific laws in their state and how they interact with the franchise agreement. It is particularly important for franchisees in states with franchise-specific laws to understand their rights and protections under those laws. Consulting with legal counsel is advisable to fully understand the implications of these provisions and how they apply to their specific situation. The interplay between the franchise agreement and state and federal laws can be complex, so professional guidance is essential.