If applicable law prevents a Casiola franchisee from assigning ownership of an Improvement, what happens?
Casiola Franchise · 2024 FDDAnswer from 2024 FDD Document
ement 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.
[SIGNATURE PAGE TO FOLLOW]
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have duly executed and delivered this New York amendment to Casiola Franchise LLC Franchise Agreement on the same date as the Franchise Agreement was executed.
| Franchisor: Casiola Franchise LLC | Franchisee: | |
|---|---|---|
| By: | Signature | |
| Signature | ||
| Name and Title (please print) | Name (please print) | |
| Dated | Dated |
NORTH DAKOTA FRANCHISE AGREEMENT AMENDMENT
Amendments to the Casiola Franchise Agreement:
In recognition of the North Dakota Franchise Investment Law, Section 51-19, the parties to the attached Casiola Franchise LLC Franchise Agreement (the "Franchise Agreement") agree as follows:
The North Dakota Addendum is only applicable if you are a resident of North Dakota or if your Casiola Business will be located within the State of North Dakota.
-
- Article 15 of the Franchise Agreement is hereby amended by the addition of the following language: "Provisions requiring North Dakota franchisees to sign a general release upon renewal of the Franchise Agreement are not enforceable in North Dakota."
-
- Article 16 of the Franchise Agreement is hereby amended by the addition of the following language: "Provisions requiring North Dakota franchisees to consent to termination or liquidated damages are not enforceable in North Dakota."
-
- Article 6 of the Franchise Agreement are hereby amended by the addition of the following language: "Covenants not to compete such as those mentioned above are generally considered unenforceable in the State of North Dakota."
-
- Article 18 of the Franchise Agreement is hereby amended by the addition of the following language: "Covenants requiring North Dakota franchisees to consent to the jurisdiction of courts outside of North Dakota may not be enforceable in North Dakota."
-
- Article 18 of the Franchise Agreement is hereby amended by the addition of the following language: "for North Dakota franchisees, North Dakota law shall apply."
-
- Article 18 of the Franchise Agreement is hereby amended by the addition of the following language: "Provisions requiring a franchisee to consent to a waiver of trial by jury are not enforceable under Section 51-19-09 of the North Dakota Franchise Investment Law."
-
- Article 18 of the Franchise Agreement is hereby amended by the addition of the following language: "Provisions requiring the franchisee to consent to a waiver of exemplary and punitive damages are not enforceable under Section 51-19-09 of the North Dakota Franchise Investment Law."
-
- Article 18 of the Franchise Agreement is hereby amended by the addition of the following language: "Provisions requiring a franchisee to consent to a limitation of claims within one year have been determined to be unfair, unjust and inequitable within the intent of Section 51-19-09 of the North Dakota Franchise Investment Law. Therefore, for North Dakota franchisees, the statute of limitations under North Dakota Law will apply."
-
- 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. This provision supersedes any other term of any document executed in connection with the franchise.
Each provision of this amendment shall be effective only to the extent, with respect to such provision, that the jurisdictional requirements of North Dakota Law are met independently without reference to this amendment.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have duly executed and delivered this North Dakota amendment to Casiola Franchise LLC Franchise Agreement on the same date as the Franchise Agreement was executed.
| Franchisor: Casiola Franchise LLC | Franchisee: | |
|---|---|---|
| By: | Signature | |
| Signature | ||
| Name and Title (please print) | Name (please print) | |
| Dated | Dated |
WASHINGTON FRANCHISE AGREEMENT AMENDMENT
Amendments to the Casiola Franchise Agreement:
In the event of a conflict of laws, the provisions of the Washington Franchise Investment Protection Act, Chapter 19.100 RCW will prevail.
RCW 19.100.180 may supersede the franchise agreement in your relationship with the franchisor including the areas of termination and renewal of your franchise. There may also be court decisions which may supersede the franchise agreement in your relationship with the franchisor including the areas of termination and renewal of your franchise.
In any arbitration or mediation involving a franchise purchased in Washington, the arbitration or mediation site will be either in the state of Washington, or in a place mutually agreed upon at the time of the arbitration or mediation, or as determined by the arbitrator or mediator at the time of arbitration or mediation. In addition, if litigation is not precluded by the franchise agreement, a franchisee may bring an action or proceeding arising out of or in connection with the sale of franchises, or a violation of the Washington Franchise Investment Protection Act, in Washington.
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 23 — RECEIPTS (FDD pages 47–209)
What This Means (2024 FDD)
Based on the 2024 Casiola Franchise Disclosure Document, the agreement includes amendments for franchisees in specific states like North Dakota, Michigan, Hawaii, Maryland and New York, addressing concerns related to franchisee rights and the enforceability of certain provisions.
For instance, the North Dakota amendment states that covenants not to compete are generally considered unenforceable in the state. The Michigan amendment voids certain unfair provisions that may be present in the franchise documents, including those that deprive franchisees of rights and protections. Similarly, the Hawaii Franchise Investment Law takes precedence over any inconsistent provisions in the franchise agreement, ensuring franchisee rights are protected under state law. The New York amendment ensures that no statement signed by a franchisee waives claims under state franchise law or disclaims reliance on franchisor statements.
These state-specific amendments suggest that if a law prevents a Casiola franchisee from assigning ownership of an improvement, the specific state law would likely take precedence over the standard franchise agreement terms. Prospective franchisees should carefully review the amendment applicable to their state and consult with legal counsel to understand their rights and obligations regarding intellectual property and improvements made to the Casiola business.