When is a waiver of exemplary or punitive damages void for a Beyond Juicery Eatery franchise?
Beyond_Juicery_Eatery Franchise · 2025 FDDAnswer from 2025 FDD Document
ITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned hereby acknowledges having read this Addendum,
FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND
The BEYOND JUICERY + EATERY FRANCHISING, LLC Franchise Agreement between _________________ ("Franchisee" or "You") and BEYOND JUICERY + EATERY FRANCHISING, LLC, a Michigan Corporation ("Franchisor," "we" or "us") dated ***Franchise Agreement Date*** (the "Agreement") shall be amended by the addition of the following language, which shall be considered an integral part of the Agreement (the "Amendment"):
-
- In recognition of the requirements of the Maryland Franchise Registration and Disclosure Law, Md Code Ann, Bus Reg §§14-201-14-233, the Franchise Agreement for BEYOND JUICERY + EATERY FRANCHISING, LLC is amended as follows:
- Sections 13.02 and 16.09 require you to sign a general release as a condition of renewal or transfer of the Franchise. Such release shall exclude claims arising under the Maryland Franchise Registration and Disclosure Law.
- 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 23.02 require litigation or arbitration to be conducted in the State of our principal place of business; the requirement shall not limit any rights you may have under the Maryland Franchise Registration and Disclosure Law to bring suit in the State of Maryland.
- Any Section of the Franchise Agreement requiring you to assent to any release, estoppel or waiver of liability as a condition of purchasing the Franchise are not intended to, nor shall they act as a, release, estoppel or waiver of any liability incurred under the Maryland Franchise Registration and Disclosure Law.
-
- Any portion of the Franchise Agreement which requires prospective Franchise Owners to disclaim the occurrence and/or acknowledge the non-occurrence of acts would constitute a violation of the Maryland Franchise Registration and Disclosure Law. Any such representations are not intended to nor shall they act as a release, estoppel or waiver of any liability incurred under the Maryland Franchise Registration and Disclosure Law.
-
- Each provision of this Addendum shall be effective only to the extent that the jurisdictional requirements of the Maryland Franchise Registration and Disclosure Law applicable to the provisions are met independently of this Addendum. 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.
| Name | | |---|---| | Address | | | City, State, Zip code | | | Phone Number | | | Email Address | | Date: ________________________________
Date: ________________________________
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned hereby acknowledges having read this Addendum,
FOR THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
The BEYOND JUICERY + EATERY FRANCHISING, LLC Franchise Agreement between _____________________ ("Franchisee" or "You") and BEYOND JUICERY + EATERY FRANCHISING, LLC, a Michigan Corporation ("Franchisor," "we" or "us") dated ***Franchise Agreement Date*** (the "Agreement") shall be amended by the addition of the following language, which shall be considered an integral part of the Agreement (the "Amendment"):
-
- In recognition of the Minnesota Franchise Law, Minn Stat, Chapter 80C, Sections 80C.01 through 80C.22, and the Rules and Regulations promulgated pursuant thereto by the Minnesota Commission of Securities, Minnesota Rule 2860.4400, et. seq, the parties to the attached Franchise Agreement agree as follows:
- Section 15 is amended to comply with the Minnesota Franchise Law that requires, except in certain specified cases, that you be given 90 days notice of termination (with 60 days to cure) and 180 days notice of non-renewal of the Agreement.
- Sections 13.02 and 16.09 provide for a prospective general release of any claims against Franchisor that may be subject to the Minnesota Franchise Law. Minn. Rule 2860.4400D prohibits a franchisor from requiring you to assent to a general release.
- Section 17 is amended to add that as required by Minnesota Franchise Act, we will reimburse you for any costs incurred by you in the defense of your right to use the Trademarks, so long as you were using the Trademarks in the manner authorized by us, and so long as we are timely notified of the claim and is given the right to manage the defense of the claim including the right to compromise, settle or otherwise resolve the claim, and to determine whether to appeal a final determination of the claim.
- Minn Stat §80C.21 and Minn Rule 2860.4400J prohibit Franchisor from requiring litigation to be conducted outside Minnesota.
Source: Item 23 — RECEIPTS (FDD pages 60–337)
What This Means (2025 FDD)
According to the 2025 Beyond Juicery Eatery FDD, a waiver of liability, including exemplary or punitive damages, is not enforceable under specific conditions, particularly concerning state franchise laws. For franchisees in Maryland, any section of the Franchise Agreement requiring them to assent to a release, estoppel, or waiver of liability as a condition of purchasing the franchise will not act as a release, estoppel, or waiver of any liability incurred under the Maryland Franchise Registration and Disclosure Law. Similarly, any portion of the Franchise Agreement that requires prospective franchise owners to disclaim the occurrence or acknowledge the non-occurrence of acts that would violate the Maryland Franchise Registration and Disclosure Law is unenforceable.
For Beyond Juicery Eatery franchisees in Washington, provisions that unreasonably restrict or limit the statute of limitations period for claims under the Washington Franchise Investment Protection Act, or restrict or limit rights or remedies available to the franchisee under the Act, such as a waiver of the right to a jury trial, may not be enforceable.
For Beyond Juicery Eatery franchisees in California, the Area Development Agreement requires litigation to be conducted in a court located outside of the State of California and requires application of the laws of a state other than California. These provisions might not be enforceable for any cause of action arising under California law. Additionally, Section 11.E. of the Area Development Agreement contains a liquidated damages clause that may be unenforceable under California Civil Code Section 1671. For franchisees in Indiana, Sections 13.02 and 16.09 provide for a prospective general release of claims against Franchisor that may be subject to the Indiana Deceptive Franchise Practices Law or the Indiana Franchise Disclosure Law.