Under what specific conditions is each provision of this amendment effective concerning the Burger King franchise?
Burger_King Franchise · 2025 FDDAnswer from 2025 FDD Document
-
- Each provision of this Amendment is effective only to the extent with respect to such provision that the jurisdictional requirements of the Hawaii Franchise Investment Law are met independently without reference to this Amendment.
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary set forth in the Franchise Agreement, the following provisions shall supersede and apply to all BURGER KING franchises offered and sold in the State of Illinois:
-
- Section 18.A of the Franchise Agreement is modified by the insertion of the following at the end of such Section:
Notwithstanding the foregoing, to the extent required by Illinois law, the Franchisor shall provide reasonable notice to the Franchisee with the opportunity to cure any defaults under this Section 18.A, which shall not be less than ten (10) days and in no event shall such notice be required to be more than thirty (30) days.
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary set forth in the Franchise Agreement, the following provisions shall supersede and apply to all BURGER KING franchises offered and sold in the State of Washington:
In the event of a conflict of laws, the provisions of the Washington Franchise Investment Protection Act, Chapter 19.100 RCW will prevail.
A release or waiver of rights executed by a franchisee may not include rights under the Washington Franchise Investment Protection Act or any rule or order thereunder except when executed pursuant to a negotiated settlement after the agreement is in effect and where the parties are represented by independent counsel.
Source: Item 20 — OUTLETS AND FRANCHISEE INFORMATION (FDD pages 109–124)
What This Means (2025 FDD)
According to Burger King's 2025 Franchise Disclosure Document, the effectiveness of specific amendment provisions varies by state law. For Hawaii, each provision of the amendment is effective only to the extent that the jurisdictional requirements of the Hawaii Franchise Investment Law are independently met without reference to the amendment itself. This means that the specific legal requirements in Hawaii must already be satisfied for each provision to take effect.
In Illinois, the amendments to the Burger King franchise agreement, such as those concerning franchisee rights upon termination/non-renewal and the ability to cure defaults, are effective to the extent required by Illinois law. This implies that the application and enforcement of these provisions are contingent upon and subject to the stipulations and protections provided by Illinois state laws.
For Washington, in the event of conflicting laws, the provisions of the Washington Franchise Investment Protection Act will take precedence. Additionally, a release or waiver of rights executed by a franchisee may not include rights under the Washington Franchise Investment Protection Act, except when executed pursuant to a negotiated settlement after the agreement is in effect and where the parties are represented by independent counsel.