Does the Casiola General Release cover claims related to violations of franchise rules?
Casiola Franchise · 2024 FDDAnswer from 2024 FDD Document
The general release required as a condition of renewal, sale, and/or assignment/transfer shall not apply to any liability under the Maryland Franchise Registration and Disclosure Law.
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.
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) waiving 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.
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.
California Corporations Code Section 31512 voids a waiver of your rights under the Franchise Investment Law (California Corporations Code Sections 31000 through 31516).
Business and Professions Code Section 20010 voids a waiver of your rights under the Franchise Relations Act (Business and Professions Code Sections 20000 through 20043).
Source: Item 23 — RECEIPTS (FDD pages 47–209)
What This Means (2024 FDD)
According to the 2024 Casiola Franchise Disclosure Document, the general release required as a condition of renewal, sale, and/or assignment/transfer does not apply to any liability under the Maryland Franchise Registration and Disclosure Law. This means that franchisees in Maryland retain their rights to pursue claims related to violations of franchise rules, specifically those protected under Maryland law, despite signing a general release. Similarly, in Washington, 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.
In New York, the FDD states that no statement, questionnaire, or acknowledgement signed by a franchisee can waive claims under any applicable state franchise law, including fraud in the inducement, or disclaim reliance on any statement made by the franchisor. This provision supersedes any other term of any document executed in connection with the franchise. This ensures that franchisees in New York are not forced to relinquish their rights under state franchise laws through waivers or releases at the commencement of the franchise relationship.
In Minnesota, the FDD specifies that Item 17 shall not provide for a prospective general release of claims against Casiola that may be subject to the Minnesota Franchise Law, as Minnesota law prohibits franchisors from requiring franchisees to assent to a general release. This protects Minnesota franchisees from being compelled to sign away their rights under the Minnesota Franchise Law. Additionally, California Corporations Code Section 31512 voids a waiver of franchisee's rights under the Franchise Investment Law (California Corporations Code Sections 31000 through 31516) and Business and Professions Code Section 20010 voids a waiver of your rights under the Franchise Relations Act (Business and Professions Code Sections 20000 through 20043).