How does the Washington Franchise Investment Protection Act affect exemplary and punitive damages for a Chesters franchise?
Chesters Franchise · 2025 FDDAnswer from 2025 FDD Document
-
- Fair and Reasonable Pricing. Any provision in the franchise agreement or related agreements that requires the franchisee to purchase or rent any product or service for more than a fair and reasonable price is unlawful under RCW 19.100.180(2)(d).
-
Waiver of Exemplary & Punitive Damages.
RCW 19.100.190 permits franchisees to seek treble damages under certain circumstances.
Accordingly, provisions contained in the franchise agreement or elsewhere requiring franchisees to waive exemplary, punitive, or similar damages are void, except when executed pursuant to a negotiated settlementafter the agreement is in effect and where the parties are represented by independent counsel, in accordance with RCW 19.100.220(2).
Source: Item 23 — **RECEIPTS (FDD pages 48–197)
What This Means (2025 FDD)
According to Chesters's 2025 Franchise Disclosure Document, the Washington Franchise Investment Protection Act addresses the waiver of exemplary and punitive damages. Specifically, RCW 19.100.190 allows franchisees to seek treble damages under certain conditions.
The FDD states that any provisions in the franchise agreement or related documents that require a franchisee to waive exemplary, punitive, or similar damages are considered void and unenforceable in Washington. However, there is an exception: such waivers are permissible if they are executed as part of a negotiated settlement after the franchise agreement is already in effect, and only if both parties are represented by independent legal counsel, in accordance with RCW 19.100.220(2).
This means that Chesters franchisees in Washington have the right to pursue exemplary or punitive damages unless they specifically agree to waive that right in a settlement reached after the franchise agreement has been signed, and with the benefit of independent legal representation. This protection ensures that franchisees are not forced to give up their rights to seek such damages at the outset of the franchise relationship.