Who is responsible for the costs of enforcing Section 16 of the Beyond Juicery Eatery agreement?
Beyond_Juicery_Eatery Franchise · 2025 FDDAnswer from 2025 FDD Document
In recognition of the requirements of the California Franchise Investment Law, Cal Corp Code §§31000-31516 and the California Franchise Relations Act, Cal Bus And Prof Code §§20000- 20043, the Franchise Agreement for BEYOND JUICERY + EATERY FRANCHISING, LLC is amended as follows:
- The California Franchise Relations Act provides you rights concerning termination or non-renewal of the Franchise Agreement, which may supersede provisions in the Franchise Agreement, specifically Sections 13 and 16.
- Section 15.01, which terminates the Franchise Agreement upon your bankruptcy, may not be enforceable under federal bankruptcy law (11 USC Section 101, et. seq).
- Section 16.05 contains a covenant not to compete that extends beyond the expiration or termination of the Agreement; this covenant may not be enforceable under California Law.
- The Franchise Agreement requires litigation to be conducted in a court located outside of the State of California. This provision might not be enforceable for any cause of Action arising under California law.
- The Franchise Agreement requires application of the laws of a state other than California. This provision might not be enforceable under California law.
- Section 23 requires binding arbitration. The arbitration will occur at the forum indicated in Section 23.02, with the costs being borne by the non-prevailing party. Prospective Franchise Owners are encouraged to consult legal counsel to determine the applicability of California and federal laws (such as Business and Professions Code Section 20040.5, Code of Civil Procedure Section 1281, and the Federal Arbitration Act) to any provisions of the Franchise Agreement restricting venue to a forum outside of the State of California.
Source: Item 23 — RECEIPTS (FDD pages 60–337)
What This Means (2025 FDD)
Based on the 2025 FDD, the costs associated with enforcing Section 16 of the Beyond Juicery Eatery agreement are not explicitly detailed. However, Item 23 includes addenda that address modifications to franchise agreements in specific states, particularly concerning dispute resolution and legal compliance. In California, Section 23 addresses binding arbitration, stating that the costs will be borne by the non-prevailing party.
While Section 16 is referenced in the context of the California Franchise Relations Act potentially superseding provisions related to termination or non-renewal, the document does not specify who bears the costs of enforcing Section 16 itself. The addendum primarily focuses on the enforceability of certain clauses under state laws and the allocation of costs in arbitration, which is addressed in Section 23.
Therefore, prospective Beyond Juicery Eatery franchisees should seek clarification from the franchisor regarding the specific cost responsibilities for enforcing Section 16, especially in jurisdictions where the standard agreement terms may be modified by state laws. Understanding these potential costs is crucial for assessing the financial implications of the franchise agreement and potential legal disputes.