In the Bojangles franchise agreement, if a court finds a provision unreasonable, do the Franchisee and its shareholders agree to be bound by the maximum duty permitted by law that is subsumed within the terms of any provision?

According to Bojangles's 2025 Franchise Disclosure Document, the franchisee and its shareholders or members expressly agree to adhere to the maximum duty permitted by law. This applies to any promise or covenant within the franchise agreement. If a court deems any part of the agreement unreasonable or unenforceable in a final decision involving Bojangles, the franchisee and its shareholders are bound by the maximum legal duty that is implied within the original terms. This is treated as if it were explicitly written into the agreement.

This clause ensures that even if a specific provision is struck down or reduced in scope by a court, the franchisee remains obligated to the fullest extent legally possible under the remaining terms. It prevents franchisees from exploiting a legal loophole created by a court decision to avoid their responsibilities. The provision aims to maintain the integrity and enforceability of the franchise agreement to the greatest extent allowed by law.

For a prospective Bojangles franchisee, this means understanding that even if certain aspects of the agreement seem overly restrictive and are later modified by a court, they are still bound by the maximum duty permissible under the law. This underscores the importance of carefully reviewing the entire franchise agreement with legal counsel to fully grasp the extent of their obligations and potential limitations. Franchisees should be aware that Bojangles retains the right to enforce the agreement to the fullest legal extent, even if specific clauses are altered.