What remedies is the Franchisor entitled to if a Bft Developer violates Article 6?
Bft Franchise · 2025 FDDAnswer from 2025 FDD Document
B. Enforcement of Covenants. Developer agrees that: (a) the restrictions contained and described in this Article 6 are reasonable and necessary to protect the legitimate interests of the System and Franchisor, (b) the existence of any claims it may have against Franchisor, whether or not arising out of this Agreement, shall not constitute a defense to the enforcement of the covenants in this Article 6, and (c) Developer's or any Restricted Party's violation of the terms of this Article 6 will cause irreparable injury to Franchisor for which no adequate remedy at law is available and that Franchisor shall be entitled, without bond (which requirement is hereby waived), to preliminary and permanent injunctive relief and damages, as well as an equitable accounting of all earnings, profits, and other benefits arising from such violation, which remedies shall be cumulative and in addition to any other rights or remedies to which Franchisor shall be entitled. Developer shall pay all costs and expenses, including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys' fees, incurred by Franchisor in connection with the enforcement of this Article 6. If Developer or a Restricted Party violates any post-term or post-transfer restriction described in this Article 6, the restrictions contained herein shall remain in effect until two (2) years after Developer or such Restricted Party begins to comply with those restrictions. If Developer contests the enforcement of this Article 6 and enforcement is delayed pending litigation, and if Franchisor prevails, the period of non-competition shall be extended for an additional period equal to the period of time that enforcement of this Article 6 is delayed. Courts are authorized and directed to reduce the scope or duration (or both) of the provision(s) in issue solely to the extent necessary to render it enforceable and/or reasonable and to enforce the provision so revised. Franchisor may, in its discretion and upon written notice, reduce the scope of any covenant not to compete, or any portion thereof, without Developer's consent.
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, if a Developer violates the restrictions in Article 6, Bft is entitled to certain remedies. Article 6 likely contains non-compete clauses or other restrictions meant to protect Bft's interests.
Specifically, Bft can seek preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, which means a court order to stop the Developer from continuing the violation. Bft is also entitled to damages to compensate for the harm caused by the violation. Additionally, Bft can pursue an equitable accounting of all earnings, profits, and other benefits the Developer gained from the violation. These remedies are cumulative, meaning Bft can pursue them in addition to any other rights or remedies available.
The Developer is responsible for covering all costs and expenses Bft incurs while enforcing Article 6, including reasonable attorney's fees. If the violation involves post-term or post-transfer restrictions, these restrictions remain in effect until two years after the Developer or any related party begins complying with them. If the Developer challenges the enforcement and Bft prevails in court, the non-competition period will be extended by the length of time the enforcement was delayed due to litigation. The agreement also states that courts are authorized to reduce the scope or duration of any provision to make it enforceable and reasonable.