In the Cinnaholic franchise agreement, does the invalidity of a term's application to one person affect its application to other people?

According to the 2025 Cinnaholic Franchise Disclosure Document, the severability clause addresses the scenario where a term, restriction, or covenant within the agreement is deemed invalid or unenforceable. This clause ensures that the remaining provisions of the agreement remain in full effect, as permitted by law. Specifically, if a court finds that applying a particular term to one person or circumstance is invalid, the enforceability of that term for other individuals or situations is not automatically negated. Instead, the term remains valid and enforceable in those other contexts, again, as permitted by law. This is a standard clause in franchise agreements.

For a prospective Cinnaholic franchisee, this means that if a specific part of the franchise agreement is successfully challenged in court by another franchisee or in a specific situation, it does not automatically invalidate the entire agreement or that specific part's applicability to their franchise. The ruling would be limited to the specific case and the specific individual or circumstance involved. The remaining terms and their application to other franchisees would continue to be binding and enforceable.

This clause provides a level of stability and predictability for both Cinnaholic and its franchisees. It prevents the entire agreement from being thrown into disarray due to a single point of contention. Franchisees can be reasonably assured that their rights and obligations under the agreement will remain in effect, even if another franchisee challenges a specific aspect of the agreement. However, the phrase "to the extent permitted by law" adds a layer of complexity, as the specific interpretation and application of the severability clause can depend on the governing law and the specific facts of each case.