Under the Chesters franchise agreement, which state's laws govern the agreement, and are there any exceptions?

According to the 2025 Chesters Franchise Disclosure Document, the franchise agreement is generally governed by Alabama law, with some exceptions for specific states. For franchisees in North Dakota, North Dakota law applies, except for federal law. In Rhode Island, Alabama law governs, except for federal law and as required by the Rhode Island Franchise Investment Act. For Illinois franchisees, Illinois law governs the Franchise Agreement, except for federal law. In Maryland, Alabama law applies, except for federal law and claims arising under the Maryland Franchise Registration and Disclosure Law.

For franchisees in California, the agreement requires application of Alabama law, but this provision might not be enforceable under California law. California Business and Professions Code Sections 20000 through 20043 provide rights to franchisees concerning transfer, termination, or nonrenewal of a franchise, and if the agreement contains a provision that is inconsistent with the law, the law will control.

In Washington, 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 provisions in the franchise agreement or related agreements concerning the franchisee's relationship with Chesters, including in the areas of termination and renewal of the franchise. Provisions contained in the franchise agreement or related agreements that unreasonably restrict or limit the statute of limitations period for claims under the Washington Franchise Investment Protection Act, or rights or remedies under the Act such as a right to a jury trial, may not be enforceable.

For franchisees in Minnesota, Minn. Stat. § 80C.21 and Minn. Rule Part 2860.4400J prohibit the franchiser from requiring litigation to be conducted outside Minnesota, requiring waiver of a jury trial, or requiring the franchisee to consent to liquidated damages, termination penalties or judgment notes. In addition, nothing in the Franchise Disclosure Document or agreement(s) can abrogate or reduce (1) any of the franchisee's rights as provided for in Minnesota Statute 80Cor (2) franchisee's rights to any procedure, forum, or remedies provided for by the laws of the jurisdiction.

These state-specific addenda modify the standard franchise agreement to comply with local franchise laws, which is a common practice in franchising to ensure the agreements are enforceable and protect franchisees' rights within those jurisdictions.