How does the Face Foundrie addendum modify Section 18.01 regarding injunctive relief?
Face_Foundrie Franchise · 2025 FDDAnswer from 2025 FDD Document
- INJUNCTIVE RELIEF. Section 18.01 of the Franchise Agreement is deleted and replaced with the following:
Nothing in this Agreement bars Franchisor's right to obtain specific performance of the provisions of this Agreement and seek injunctive relief against conduct that threatens to injure or harm Franchisor, the Marks or the System, under customary equity rules, including applicable rules for obtaining restraining orders and preliminary injunctions. Franchisee agrees that Franchisor may seek such injunctive relief. Franchisee agrees that its only remedy if an injunction is entered against Franchisee will be the dissolution of that injunction, if warranted, upon due hearing, and Franchisee hereby expressly waives any claim for damages caused by such injunction. A court will determine if a bond is required.
Source: Item 22 — CONTRACTS (FDD pages 73–74)
What This Means (2025 FDD)
According to the 2025 Face Foundrie Franchise Disclosure Document, Section 18.01 of the Franchise Agreement, which pertains to injunctive relief, is modified by an addendum specific to Minnesota. The original section is entirely deleted and replaced with a new provision.
Under the revised terms, Face Foundrie retains the right to seek specific performance of the agreement's provisions and to pursue injunctive relief against any conduct that threatens to harm Face Foundrie, its trademarks, or its established system. This right is governed by standard equity rules, including those applicable to obtaining restraining orders and preliminary injunctions.
Furthermore, the franchisee acknowledges Face Foundrie's right to seek such injunctive relief. In the event an injunction is issued against the franchisee, their sole recourse is to pursue the dissolution of the injunction through due process. The franchisee explicitly waives any right to claim damages resulting from the injunction. The determination of whether a bond is required rests with the court.