Can a claim against Mrcool be used as a defense against Mrcool's enforcement of the Franchise Agreement?
Mrcool Franchise · 2025 FDDAnswer from 2025 FDD Document
hat the non-waiver provisions of N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law Sections 687.4 and 687.5 be satisfied.
-
- Under Article 15.B. of the Franchise Agreement, under the heading "Conditions for Renewal," the subarticle 15.B(8) is supplemented with the addition of the following language:
- ; provided, however, that all rights and causes of action arising in favor of Franchisee from the provisions of New York General Business Law Sections 680-695 and the regulations issued thereunder, shall remain in force; it being the intent of this provision that the non-waiver provisions of N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law Sections 687.4 and 687.5 be satisfied.
-
- Article 18 of the Franchise Agreement and, if Franchisee executes a Development Agreement, Section 7 of the Development Agreement, under the heading "Enforcement and Construction," shall be supplemented by the addition of the following new subarticle 18.Z. to the Franchise Agreement and Section 7.24 of the Development Agreement:
Nothing in this Agreement should be considered a waiver of any right conferred upon franchisee by New York General Business Law, Sections 680-695.
-
- There are circumstances in which an offering made by MRCOOL Franchising, LLC would not fall within the scope of the New York General Business Law, Article 33, such as when the offer and acceptance occurred outside the State of New York. However, an offer or sale is deemed made in New York if you are domiciled in New York or the Outlet will be opening in New York. MRCOOL Franchising, LLC is required to furnish a New York prospectus to every prospective franchisee who is protected under the New York General Business Law, Article 33.
-
- No statement, questionnaire or acknowledgement signed or agreed to by a franchisee in connection with the commencement of the franchise relationship shall have the effect of: (i) waiving any claims under any applicable state franchise law, including fraud in the inducement, or (ii) disclaiming reliance on any statement made by any franchisor, franchise seller, or other person acting on behalf of the franchisor. This provision supersedes any other term of any document executed in connection with the franchise.
-
- Each provision of this amendment shall be effective only to the extent, with respect to such provision, that the jurisdictional requirements of the New York General Business Law, are met independently without reference to this amendment.
[SIGNATURE PAGE TO FOLLOW]
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have duly executed and delivered this New York amendment to the MRCOOL Franchising, LLC Franchise Agreement and, if applicable, the Development Agreement on the same date as the Franchise Agreement and Development Agreement were, respectively, executed.
| Franchisor: MRCOOL Franchising, LLC | Franchisee: | |----------------------------------------|---------------------| | Signature | Signature | | Name and Title (please print) | Name (please print) | | Dated | Dated Signature Name (please print) Dated |
NORTH DAKOTA FRANCHISE AGREEMENT AMENDMENT
Amendments to the MRCOOL Franchise Agreement
In recognition of the North Dakota Franchise Investment Law, Section 51-19, the parties to the attached MRCOOL Franchising, LLC Franchise Agreement (the "Franchise Agreement") agree as follows:
The North Dakota Addendum is only applicable if you are a resident of North Dakota or if your MRCOOL Center outlet will be located within the State of North Dakota.
-
- Article 15 of the Franchise Agreement is hereby amended by the addition of the following language: "Provisions requiring North Dakota franchisees to sign a general release upon renewal of the Franchise Agreement are not enforceable in North Dakota."
-
Source: Item 23 — RECEIPTS (FDD pages 55–263)
What This Means (2025 FDD)
According to the 2025 FDD, the ability to use a claim against Mrcool as a defense against enforcement of the Franchise Agreement depends on the specific state laws and the terms of the agreement. In New York, no statement signed by a franchisee can waive claims under state franchise law, including fraud in the inducement, or disclaim reliance on statements made by Mrcool. This provision overrides any conflicting terms in any document related to the franchise. Similarly, in Virginia and Maryland, no statement can waive claims under applicable state franchise law, including fraud in the inducement, or disclaim reliance on any statement made by Mrcool. These protections ensure franchisees are not bound by waivers that could prevent them from defending themselves against Mrcool's enforcement actions based on Mrcool's conduct.
For franchisees in Rhode Island, any general release required as a condition of renewal, termination, or transfer is void with respect to claims under the Rhode Island Franchise Investment Act. This prevents Mrcool from using such releases to block franchisees from raising defenses based on those claims. In Washington, provisions that unreasonably restrict or limit the statute of limitations period for claims, rights, or remedies under the Washington Franchise Investment Protection Act, such as the right to a jury trial, may not be enforceable. This ensures franchisees retain their legal rights to defend against enforcement actions.
In North Dakota, provisions requiring franchisees to sign a general release upon renewal, consent to termination or liquidated damages, or consent to the jurisdiction of courts outside of North Dakota may not be enforceable. Additionally, covenants not to compete are generally considered unenforceable in North Dakota. These state-specific amendments collectively suggest that a franchisee's ability to use a claim against Mrcool as a defense is protected by state laws that prevent certain waivers and restrictions, thereby allowing franchisees to challenge Mrcool's enforcement of the Franchise Agreement under certain conditions.