Are there any exceptions to the requirement of requesting a meeting or telephone conference before seeking judicial resolution of a dispute related to a Dryject franchise?
Dryject Franchise · 2025 FDDAnswer from 2025 FDD Document
- (i) Except for matters where either party seeks equitable relief, neither party will seek a judicial resolution of a dispute between them without first requesting a meeting or telephone conference with the other party by written notice, which notice will designate a party who is a senior executive with authority to reach a resolution of the dispute on their behalf. The party receiving the notice will also designate a representative of similar authority for the purpose of discussing the specific matter in dispute. If You are an individual, You will be Your designated representative. At least one meeting or telephone
conference of the designated representatives will be held in an effort to resolve the dispute. The parties will agree on a location, date and time for the meeting or telephone conference which must be within thirty (30) days of the initial notice. If the meeting(s) and/or telephone conferences do not resolve the dispute, either party may pursue mediation in accordance with Subsection 37(a)(ii).
Source: Item 8 — BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP (FDD pages 68–229)
What This Means (2025 FDD)
According to the 2025 Dryject FDD, there is an exception to the requirement of first requesting a meeting or telephone conference before seeking judicial resolution of a dispute. This exception applies when either Dryject or the franchisee seeks equitable relief. In such cases, the party seeking equitable relief is not required to first request a meeting or telephone conference before pursuing judicial resolution.
This means that a Dryject franchisee can immediately seek a court order (equitable relief) without the initial step of a meeting or phone call if the situation warrants immediate action. Equitable relief typically involves non-monetary remedies like injunctions or specific performance, where waiting for a meeting could cause irreparable harm.
This clause aims to provide a faster route to resolution in urgent situations where monetary compensation is insufficient. However, for all other disputes, the initial step of requesting a meeting or telephone conference remains mandatory, reflecting an intention to resolve issues amicably before resorting to litigation.