Does the Deer Solution Franchise Agreement amendment supersede any other term of any document executed in connection with the franchise?

According to the 2025 Deer Solution Franchise Disclosure Document, certain provisions within the franchise agreement amendments supersede other terms in documents related to the franchise, specifically concerning franchisee rights and waivers. For franchisees in California, Illinois, New York, and Virginia, the amendment states that no statement, questionnaire, or acknowledgment signed by the franchisee can waive claims under state franchise law, including fraud in the inducement, or disclaim reliance on franchisor statements. This specific provision takes precedence over any conflicting terms in other documents executed in connection with the Deer Solution franchise.

This means that Deer Solution franchisees in these states are protected from inadvertently waiving their legal rights through standard documents signed during the franchise commencement. The amendment ensures that franchisees retain their ability to pursue claims related to franchise law and reliance on franchisor representations, regardless of any potentially conflicting language in other agreements. This protection is particularly important in addressing power imbalances where franchisees might feel pressured to sign documents that could later compromise their legal standing.

For example, if a Deer Solution franchisee in Illinois signs a document that appears to waive their rights under the Illinois Franchise Disclosure Act, this amendment would invalidate that waiver. Similarly, in Virginia, if a franchisee signs a statement disclaiming reliance on earnings claims made by Deer Solution during the sales process, this amendment would allow the franchisee to still pursue claims based on those earnings claims. This offers a degree of security and legal recourse for franchisees, ensuring that their rights under state franchise laws are upheld.

It is important to note that the Washington FDD Amendment states that in the event of conflict of laws, the provisions of the Washington Franchise Investment Protection Act will prevail. Additionally, in Hawaii, if any subarticle contains a provision that is inconsistent with the Hawaii Franchise Investment Law, the Hawaii Franchise Investment Law will control. Similarly, the Rhode Island FDD Amendment states that any provision in a Franchise Agreement restricting jurisdiction or venue to a forum outside of Rhode Island or requiring the application of the laws of another state is void with respect to a claim otherwise enforceable under the Rhode Island Franchise Investment Act. These stipulations highlight the importance of franchisees understanding the specific state laws that govern their franchise agreement and consulting with legal counsel to ensure their rights are fully protected.