Is monetary compensation considered a sufficient remedy for City Wide if a franchisee violates the non-compete agreement?
City_Wide Franchise · 2025 FDDAnswer from 2025 FDD Document
Franchisee acknowledges, covenants and agrees that CITY WIDE will be entitled to immediate equitable remedies, including but not limited to, restraining orders in order to safeguard such proprietary, confidential, unique and special information of CITY WIDE and that money damages alone would be an insufficient remedy with which to compensate CITY WIDE for any breach of the terms of this Non-Compete Agreement.
Nothing herein shall, however, be construed as prohibiting CITY WIDE from pursuing any other remedies available to CITY WIDE for such breach or threatened breach, including recovery of damages from the franchisee.
Source: Item 22 — CONTRACTS (FDD page 65)
What This Means (2025 FDD)
According to City Wide's 2025 Franchise Disclosure Document, monetary damages alone are considered an insufficient remedy for a franchisee's breach of the non-compete agreement. City Wide maintains it is entitled to immediate equitable remedies, including restraining orders, to protect its confidential information.
This means that if a City Wide franchisee violates the non-compete agreement, City Wide can seek immediate legal action to stop the franchisee from continuing the prohibited activities. This could involve obtaining a court order that prevents the franchisee from engaging in competitive behavior.
In addition to seeking equitable remedies, City Wide also retains the right to pursue other available remedies, including recovering monetary damages from the franchisee. This indicates that City Wide can pursue both injunctive relief (stopping the behavior) and financial compensation for any losses suffered due to the breach. This is a common practice in franchising, as non-compete agreements are designed to protect the franchisor's business model and confidential information.