Can Beyond Juicery Eatery unilaterally modify the non-compete covenants, and if so, how?
Beyond_Juicery_Eatery Franchise · 2025 FDDAnswer from 2025 FDD Document
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.
-
- To the extent this Addendum shall be deemed to be inconsistent with any terms or conditions of said Franchise Agreement or exhibits or attachments thereto, the terms of this Addendum shall govern.
Source: Item 23 — RECEIPTS (FDD pages 60–337)
What This Means (2025 FDD)
Based on the 2025 Franchise Disclosure Document, Beyond Juicery Eatery's ability to unilaterally modify non-compete covenants depends on the specific state laws governing the franchise agreement. For instance, in California, Section 16.05 of the Franchise Agreement, which contains a covenant not to compete that extends beyond the expiration or termination of the agreement, may not be enforceable under California Law. Similarly, for franchisees in Indiana, the Indiana Deceptive Franchise Practices Law and the Indiana Franchise Disclosure Law may affect the enforceability of certain provisions, potentially requiring modifications to the agreement.
For franchisees in Washington, the Washington Franchise Investment Protection Act provides rights concerning non-renewal and termination of the Area Development Agreement, and if the agreement contains a provision inconsistent with the Act, the Act shall control. Additionally, provisions that unreasonably restrict or limit the statute of limitations period for claims under the Act, or restrict or limit rights or remedies available to the franchisee, such as a waiver of the right to a jury trial, may not be enforceable. These state-specific regulations suggest that Beyond Juicery Eatery may need to adjust the enforcement of non-compete clauses to comply with local laws.
Beyond Juicery Eatery includes addenda to the franchise agreement that address specific state laws. These addenda take precedence over the standard agreement terms if inconsistencies arise. This approach ensures that the franchise agreement complies with local regulations, including those affecting non-compete covenants. Prospective franchisees should consult with legal counsel to understand how these state-specific addenda impact the enforceability of non-compete provisions in their particular state.