Is arbitration required for Cool Binz claims arising out of or pertaining to any warranty issued?
Cool_Binz Franchise · 2025 FDDAnswer from 2025 FDD Document
r rights to arbitration. Each party shall bear its own cost of arbitration and you and we shall share costs of the arbitrator equally. This agreement to arbitrate shall survive any termination or expiration of this Agreement.
- a. Notwithstanding the foregoing, we shall not be required to arbitrate, and may initiate litigation in court, in accordance with the procedure set forth in Section 15 F.3, any controversy, dispute, or claim as set forth in this Section 15.F.2 if such controversy, dispute, or
Source: Item 23 — RECEIPTS (FDD pages 63–238)
What This Means (2025 FDD)
According to the 2025 Cool Binz Franchise Disclosure Document, arbitration is not required for claims pertaining to or arising out of any warranty issue. Cool Binz retains the right to initiate litigation in court for such claims, meaning franchisees may face legal action in a court of law rather than a binding arbitration process for warranty-related disputes.
This is a notable exception to the general arbitration clause, which mandates binding arbitration in Ann Arbor, Michigan, for most disputes not resolved through internal procedures. The franchisor's decision to exclude warranty claims from arbitration provides them with greater control over the resolution process, potentially allowing for quicker and more decisive action.
For a prospective Cool Binz franchisee, this means that warranty disputes could be more adversarial and costly, as they may be subject to court proceedings rather than the often more streamlined and less expensive arbitration process. It is important for franchisees to understand the implications of this clause and to factor in the potential costs and risks associated with warranty-related litigation when evaluating the franchise opportunity.