In the Hardees franchise agreement, if a court finds a provision unreasonable, does the franchisee agree to be bound by the maximum duty permitted by law that is subsumed within the terms of that provision?

According to Hardees's 2025 Franchise Disclosure Document, the franchisee expressly agrees to adhere to the maximum duty permitted by law that is incorporated within any provision of the franchise agreement. This applies even if a court deems a portion of that provision unreasonable or unenforceable in a final decision involving Hardees. This agreement ensures that the franchisee remains bound to the fullest extent legally possible, as if the maximum duty were explicitly written into the agreement.

This clause means that if a court reduces the scope of any promise or covenant within the agreement to comply with a court order, the franchisee is still bound by the maximum duty allowed by law. This could involve financial obligations, operational requirements, or any other aspect of the franchise agreement. The franchisee cannot argue that the reduced scope eliminates their responsibility up to the legal limit.

For a prospective Hardees franchisee, this provision underscores the importance of carefully reviewing the entire franchise agreement and understanding the potential implications of each clause. It is advisable to seek legal counsel to fully grasp the extent of the obligations and duties, especially those that might be subject to judicial interpretation. This clause is designed to protect Hardees's interests by ensuring franchisees remain compliant to the greatest extent permitted by law, even if specific terms are adjusted by a court.