In the event of conflicting laws, which provisions prevail for a Big Apple Bagels franchise in Washington?

According to Big Apple Bagels' 2025 Franchise Disclosure Document, specifically Exhibit R, the Washington Franchise Investment Protection Act, Chapter 19.100 RCW, takes precedence if there is a conflict of laws. This means that if any part of the Big Apple Bagels Franchise Agreement clashes with the Washington Franchise Investment Protection Act, the provisions of the Act will be upheld.

This protection extends to certain rights under the Act, ensuring that franchisees are not forced to waive these rights unless through a negotiated settlement with independent legal representation. For example, any attempts to unreasonably shorten the statute of limitations for claims or limit rights such as a jury trial may not be enforceable. This safeguards franchisees from unknowingly or unfairly relinquishing their legal protections under Washington law.

Furthermore, certain restrictions that Big Apple Bagels might try to impose are explicitly unenforceable in Washington. For instance, non-competition covenants against employees of a franchisee are void if the employee's annualized earnings are below $100,000 (subject to annual inflation adjustments). Similarly, franchisors cannot restrict franchisees from hiring employees of other franchisees or the franchisor itself. These stipulations provide additional clarity and protection for franchisees operating in Washington, ensuring compliance with state-specific labor laws and preventing overreaching restrictions by the franchisor.