In Minnesota, can Dryject require the franchisee to consent to judgment notes?
Dryject Franchise · 2025 FDDAnswer from 2025 FDD Document
| “DryJect will protect Franchise Owner’s right to use the trademarks, service | |
|---|---|
| marks, trade names, logotypes or other commercial symbols or indemnify | |
| Franchise Owner from any loss, costs or expenses arising out of any claim, | |
| suit or demand regarding the use of the name.” | |
| 7. Waiver of Rights and Injunctive Relief. Under Minn. Rule 2860.4400J, | |
| the Agreement is amended to include that it shall be unfair and inequitable | |
| for any person to require a franchisee to waive his or her rights to a jury trial | |
| or waive rights to any procedure, forum, or remedies provided by the laws | |
| of the jurisdiction, or to consent to liquidated damages, termination | |
| procedures, or judgment notes; provided that the foregoing shall not bar an | |
| exclusive arbitration clause. Under Minn. Rule 2860.4400J, a franchisee | |
| cannot waive any rights or consent to the franchisor obtaining injunctive | |
| relief (although the franchisor may seek injunctive relief). Each reference in | |
| the Agreement to the phrase “Franchise Owner consents that DryJect is | |
| entitled to injunctive relief” or words of similar import shall be deleted and | |
| the phrase “DryJect may seek injunctive relief” shall be inserted in its place. | |
| 8. Jurisdiction. The following is added to Section 48: | |
| Minn. Stat. Sec. 80C.,21 and Minn. Rules 2860.4400J prohibit DryJect from | |
| requiring litigation to be conducted outside Minnesota, requiring waiver of | |
| a jury trial, or requiring the franchisee to consent to liquidated damages, | |
| termination penalties or judgment notes. In addition, nothing in the | |
| disclosure document or franchise agreement can abrogate or reduce any of | |
| Franchise Owner’s rights as provided for in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter | |
| 80C, or Franchise Owner’s rights to any procedure, forum or remedies | |
| provided for by the laws of the jurisdiction. Intending to be bound, DryJect | |
| signs and delivers this Rider in 2 counterparts effective on the Agreement | |
| Date, regardless of the actual date of signature. |
Source: Item 8 — BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP (FDD pages 68–229)
What This Means (2025 FDD)
According to Dryject's 2025 Franchise Disclosure Document, Minnesota law prohibits Dryject from requiring franchisees to consent to judgment notes. Specifically, Minn. Stat. Sec. 80C.21 and Minn. Rules 2860.4400J explicitly prevent Dryject from mandating that franchisees agree to judgment notes as part of the franchise agreement. This protection ensures that franchisees retain their legal rights and are not forced into unfair agreements.
This provision is crucial for prospective Dryject franchisees in Minnesota because it safeguards them from potentially coercive contract terms. Judgment notes can be detrimental to a franchisee's financial and legal standing, as they allow the franchisor to obtain a judgment against the franchisee without a full trial. By prohibiting this requirement, Minnesota law aims to create a more equitable balance of power between Dryject and its franchisees.
Furthermore, the FDD emphasizes that nothing within the disclosure document or franchise agreement can diminish any rights granted to the franchisee under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 80C, or their rights to any procedure, forum, or remedies provided by the laws of the jurisdiction. This reinforces the state's commitment to protecting franchisees' legal recourse and ensuring fair business practices within the franchise system. Therefore, a prospective franchisee can be assured that Dryject cannot legally compel them to consent to judgment notes in Minnesota.