What happens to inconsistent provisions between the Bft Franchise Agreement and this rider?
Bft Franchise · 2025 FDDAnswer from 2025 FDD Document
TO FOLLOW]*
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed and delivered this Rider to be effective as of the effective date of the Multi-Unit Agreement.
BFT FRANCHISE SPV, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company [NAME OF DEVELOPER] Capacity:
RIDER TO THE BFT FRANCHISE SPV, LLC MULTI-UNIT AGREEMENT FOR USE IN MINNESOTA
| THIS RIDER (this "Rider") is made and entered into by and between | BFT FRANCHISE SPV, |
|---|---|
| LLC, a Delaware limited liability company with its principal business address at 17877 Von Karman Ave., | |
| Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92614 ("Franchisor"), and, | |
| whose principal business address is | ("Developer"). |
| 1. | dated |
| Background. Franchisor and Developer are parties to that certain Multi-Unit Agreement | |
| , 20 (the "Multi-Unit Agreement") that has been signed concurrently | |
| with the signing of this Rider. This Rider supersedes any inconsistent or conflicting provisions of the Multi | |
| Unit Agreement. |
Source: Item 17 — RENEWAL, TERMINATION, TRANSFER AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION (FDD pages 57–66)
What This Means (2025 FDD)
According to Bft's 2025 Franchise Disclosure Document, a rider is signed concurrently with either the Franchise Agreement or the Multi-Unit Agreement. This rider is designed to address specific legal requirements or considerations within certain states like Maryland, North Dakota, Minnesota, and New York. The key provision is that the rider takes precedence over any conflicting terms in the main agreement.
For a prospective Bft franchisee, this means that if there's a disagreement between something in the standard Franchise Agreement and something in the rider, the rider's terms will be the ones that apply. This is particularly relevant for franchisees operating in or from the specified states, as the riders often include clauses related to franchise registration, disclosure laws, and legal recourse within those states.
For example, the Maryland rider includes stipulations that releases required for renewal or transfer won't apply to claims under Maryland's franchise laws. Similarly, it specifies that a franchisee may bring a lawsuit in Maryland for claims arising under the Maryland Franchise Registration and Disclosure Law, regardless of what the standard agreement says about jurisdiction. The North Dakota, Minnesota and New York riders have similar stipulations for those states.
It is important for a prospective Bft franchisee to carefully review both the Franchise Agreement and any accompanying rider to fully understand their rights and obligations, especially concerning legal and regulatory matters specific to their state.