Is jurisdiction of courts in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania required for Mr. Sandless franchise agreements?
Mr_Sandless Franchise · 2025 FDDAnswer from 2025 FDD Document
nder the National Franchise Mediation Program ("NFMP") in accordance with the NFMP's mediation rules then in effect. (subject to state law) | | v. | Choice of forum | 24.6 | Subject to state law, for any dispute not subject to or not resolved by mediation, the parties agree to litigate only in a court of general jurisdiction in Delaware County, Pennsylvania, or the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. | | w. | Choice of law | 24.1 | Agreement is governed by the laws of Pennsylvania. (subject to state law) | Provisions which allow us to terminate upon bankruptcy may not be enforceable under federal bankruptcy law (11 U.S.C. §101 et seq.)
EXHIBIT F
STATE SPECIFIC ADDENDA
HAWAII ADDENDUM TO THE DISCLOSURE DOCUMENT AND AGREEMENT
THESE FRANCHISES WILL BE/HAVE BEEN FILED UNDER THE FRANCHISE INVESTMENT LAW OF THE STATE OF HAWAII.
Source: Item 17 — RENEWAL, TERMINATION, TRANSFER AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION (FDD pages 30–34)
What This Means (2025 FDD)
According to Mr. Sandless's 2025 Franchise Disclosure Document, the franchise agreement specifies that disputes not resolved through mediation will be litigated in Pennsylvania. Specifically, the agreement states that litigation will occur in a court of general jurisdiction in Delaware County, Pennsylvania, or the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, subject to state law. This means that if a Mr. Sandless franchisee has a dispute with the company that cannot be resolved through mediation, they may be required to travel to Pennsylvania to pursue legal action.
However, this requirement is subject to state law, meaning that certain states may have laws that override this provision and require disputes to be resolved in the franchisee's home state. For example, the FDD includes a state addendum for Indiana stating that jurisdiction and venue must be in Indiana if the franchisee so requests, amending the franchise agreement's Article 24. Similarly, a provision in the Rhode Island Franchise Investment Act voids any franchise agreement clause restricting jurisdiction or venue to a forum outside of Rhode Island for claims enforceable under that Act.
Prospective Mr. Sandless franchisees should be aware of the potential implications of the forum selection clause, particularly the cost and inconvenience of litigating a dispute in Pennsylvania. They should also consult with an attorney to determine whether their state has any laws that would override this provision. It is important to note that the franchise agreement also specifies that the agreement is governed by the laws of Pennsylvania, subject to state law, which could further complicate any legal disputes.
In summary, while Mr. Sandless's franchise agreement generally requires litigation to occur in Pennsylvania, this is subject to state law, and franchisees should investigate their own state's regulations regarding forum selection and choice of law in franchise agreements.