Does the Casiola franchise agreement abrogate any of your rights to any procedure provided for by the laws of the jurisdiction?
Casiola Franchise · 2024 FDDAnswer from 2024 FDD Document
- D. Item 17 "Renewal, Termination, Transfer and Dispute Resolution," Item 17 is supplemented by the addition of the following: Item 17 shall not provide for a prospective general release of claims against us that may be subject to the Minnesota Franchise Law. Minn. Rule 2860.4400D prohibits a franchisor from requiring a franchisee to assent to a general release.
- E. Minn. Stat. §80C.21 and Minn. Rule 2860.4400J prohibit us from requiring litigation to be conducted outside Minnesota. In addition, nothing in the Disclosure Document or Franchise Agreement can abrogate or reduce any of your rights as provided for in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 80C, or your rights to any procedure, forum or remedies provided for by the laws of the jurisdiction.
- F. No statement, questionnaire or acknowledgement signed or agreed to by a franchisee in connection with the commencement of the franchise relationship shall have the effect of: (i) waiting any claims under any applicable state franchise law, including fraud in the inducement, or (ii) disclaiming reliance on any statement made by any franchisor, franchise seller, or other person acting on behalf of the franchisor. This provision supersedes any other term of any document executed in connection with the franchise.
Source: Item 23 — RECEIPTS (FDD pages 47–209)
What This Means (2024 FDD)
According to Casiola's 2024 Franchise Disclosure Document, the franchise agreement does not necessarily abrogate all rights to procedures provided by the laws of the jurisdiction, as evidenced by several state-specific amendments. For franchisees in Minnesota, the FDD states that nothing in the Disclosure Document or Franchise Agreement can abrogate or reduce any of your rights as provided for in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 80C, or your rights to any procedure, forum or remedies provided for by the laws of the jurisdiction.
For franchisees in New York, the agreement is amended to ensure that no part of it should be considered a waiver of any right conferred upon the franchisee by New York General Business Law, Sections 680-695. The agreement also specifies that rights and causes of action arising from these New York laws remain in force during transfer and renewal, reinforcing the non-waiver provisions of N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law Sections 687.4 and 687.5.
In Illinois, the Franchise Disclosure Act stipulates that any condition that binds a person acquiring a franchise to waive compliance with the Illinois Franchise Disclosure Act or any other law of Illinois is void. Similarly, for Hawaii, the amendment ensures that the Hawaii Franchise Investment Law will control if any provision is inconsistent with it. Furthermore, no statement signed by the franchisee can waive claims under state franchise law or disclaim reliance on statements made by Casiola.
For Maryland franchisees, the agreement is amended to allow a franchisee to bring a lawsuit in Maryland for claims arising under the Maryland Franchise Registration and Disclosure Law, and any claims must be brought within three years after the grant of the franchise. These amendments collectively ensure that franchisees retain certain statutory rights and procedures, with specific protections varying by state law.