What state's laws govern the Crave agreement?

The 2025 Crave Franchise Disclosure Document includes addenda for several states that modify the standard franchise agreement to comply with local laws. Specifically, the addendum for New York states that the choice of law in the franchise agreement should not be considered a waiver of any right conferred upon the franchisor or the franchisee by Article 33 of the General Business Law of the State of New York. This suggests that while the franchise agreement may generally be governed by the laws of a particular state chosen by Crave, New York law will take precedence regarding the rights of parties under New York's General Business Law.

Additionally, the addendum for Indiana states that Item 17 of the Disclosure Document is amended to reflect the requirement under Indiana Code 23-2-2.7-1 (9), which states that any post term non-compete covenant must not extend beyond the franchisee's exclusive territory. It also mentions that under Indiana Code 23-2-2.7-1 (10), jurisdiction and venue must be in Indiana if the franchisee so requests, and that the franchisee may not agree to waive any claims or rights. Similarly, the addendum for Maryland states that the appropriate sections of the Franchise Agreement are amended to permit a franchisee to bring a lawsuit in Maryland for claims arising under the Maryland Franchise Registration and Disclosure Law, and that any claims arising under this law must be brought within three years after the grant of the franchise.

For prospective Crave franchisees, this means that the franchise agreement is subject to modifications based on the state in which the franchise is located. While the agreement likely contains a general choice of law provision, these addenda ensure that specific rights and protections afforded by state laws, such as those in New York, Indiana, and Maryland, are upheld. Franchisees should carefully review the addendum for their specific state to understand how local laws may affect the terms of their franchise agreement. This is a common practice in franchising to ensure compliance with varying state franchise laws, which aim to protect franchisees from potentially unfair or overreaching terms in the franchise agreement.