If a provision of the Learningrx agreement conflicts with local law, how is it handled?

According to the 2025 Learningrx Franchise Disclosure Document, the handling of conflicting provisions between the franchise agreement and local law varies by state. For franchisees in California, if the franchise agreement contains a provision inconsistent with California law, the law will take precedence. Similarly, in Washington, the provisions of the Washington Franchise Investment Protection Act will prevail in the event of a conflict of laws. In Wisconsin, the Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law supersedes any conflicting provision in the Franchise Agreement. These stipulations are formalized through state-specific addenda to the franchise agreement.

For prospective Learningrx franchisees, this means that the enforceability of certain clauses within the franchise agreement may be limited or altered based on the specific laws of the state in which they operate. Areas often subject to state law override include termination clauses, non-compete agreements, liquidated damages, and arbitration requirements. The state addenda included in the FDD serve to modify the standard franchise agreement to comply with these state-specific regulations.

It is important for potential Learningrx franchisees to carefully review the addendum specific to their state, if one exists, and understand how it modifies the standard franchise agreement. This ensures that franchisees are aware of their rights and obligations under local law, which may differ from what is outlined in the general franchise agreement. Consulting with a legal professional experienced in franchise law within their state is advisable to fully understand these nuances and their implications.