Does the Dryject franchise agreement specify the consequences if a franchisee's actions result in a judgment against the franchisor?

The 2025 Dryject Franchise Disclosure Document does not explicitly detail the consequences if a franchisee's actions lead to a judgment against the franchisor. However, the FDD does state that Dryject will protect the franchisee's right to use their trademarks and trade names and will indemnify the franchisee against losses, costs, or expenses from claims related to the use of the Dryject name. This suggests Dryject may assume some responsibility for claims arising from the use of its brand. Also, the document includes clauses that prevent franchisees from waiving certain rights, such as the right to a jury trial, and ensures that Minnesota law governs the interpretation and enforcement of the agreement for franchises operating in Minnesota.

Furthermore, the FDD includes provisions related to trade secrets and non-compete agreements, outlining the obligations of both the franchisee and any individuals they employ who have access to Dryject's trade secrets. These provisions aim to protect Dryject's confidential information and maintain the goodwill associated with the Dryject system. The agreement also specifies remedies for breaches of these confidentiality and non-compete obligations, including injunctive relief and the right to terminate the franchise agreement.

While the FDD does not directly address judgments against Dryject due to franchisee actions, the clauses regarding indemnification, protection of rights, and trade secrets suggest a framework for managing liabilities and protecting the brand's interests. A prospective franchisee should seek clarification from Dryject regarding specific scenarios where franchisee actions could result in judgments against the franchisor and what the financial and legal consequences would be for both parties.