For Bft, what does the Rider say about its relationship to the Multi-Unit Agreement?
Bft Franchise · 2025 FDDAnswer from 2025 FDD Document
| 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. Terms not otherwise defined in this Rider have the meanings as defined in the Multi-Unit | |
| Agreement. | |
| This Rider is annexed to and forms part of the Multi-Unit Agreement. This Rider is being | |
| signed because (a) an offer to sell is made in the State of New York; or (b) an offer to buy is accepted in | |
| the State of New York; or (c) if Developer is domiciled in the State of New York, the Studio is or will be | |
| developed in the State of New York. |
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, the Rider is an integral part of the Multi-Unit Agreement. Specifically, the Rider is annexed to and forms a part of the Multi-Unit Agreement. The Rider is signed concurrently with the Multi-Unit Agreement.
The Rider serves to modify the Multi-Unit Agreement in certain situations. The Rider supersedes any inconsistent or conflicting provisions of the Multi-Unit Agreement. Terms that are not defined within the Rider itself will carry the same meanings as defined in the Multi-Unit Agreement.
Notably, Bft includes state-specific riders. These riders address specific legal requirements or considerations within certain states, such as Maryland, North Dakota, Illinois, New York and Washington. For example, the Rider for use in Illinois states that any condition purporting to waive compliance with the Illinois Franchise Disclosure Act or any other law of Illinois is void. Similarly, the Rider for use in North Dakota modifies provisions related to jurisdiction, punitive damages, and jury trials to comply with North Dakota law.