What is the implication of court decisions on the Sonesta Simply Suites franchise agreement in Washington?
Sonesta_Simply_Suites Franchise · 2025 FDDAnswer from 2025 FDD Document
In the event of a conflict of laws, the provisions of the Washington Franchise Investment Protection Act, chapter 19.100 RCW will prevail.
RCW 19.100.180 may supersede provisions in the franchise agreement or related agreements concerning your relationship with the franchisor, including in the areas of termination and renewal of your franchise. There may also be court decisions that supersede the franchise agreement or related agreements concerning your relationship with the franchisor. Franchise agreement provisions, including those summarized in Item 17 of the Franchise Disclosure Document, are subject to state law.
In any arbitration or mediation involving a franchise purchased in Washington, the arbitration or mediation site will be either in the state of Washington, or in a place mutually agreed upon at the time of the arbitration or mediation, or as determined by the arbitrator or mediator at the time of arbitration or mediation. In addition, if litigation is not precluded by the franchise agreement, a franchisee may bring an action or proceeding arising out of or in connection with the sale of franchises, or a violation of the Washington Franchise Investment Protection Act, in Washington.
A release or waiver of rights in the franchise agreement or related agreements purporting to bind the franchisee to waive compliance with any provision under the Washington Franchise Investment Protection Act or any rules or orders thereunder is void except when executed pursuant to a negotiated settlement after the agreement is in effect and where the parties are represented by independent counsel, in accordance with RCW 19.100.220(2). In addition, any such release or waiver executed in connection with a renewal or transfer of a franchise is likewise void except as provided for in RCW 19.100.220(2).
Provisions contained in the franchise agreement or related agreements that unreasonably restrict or limit the statute of limitations period for claims under the Washington Franchise Investment Protection Act, or rights or remedies under the Act such as a right to a jury trial, may not be enforceable.
Source: Item 23 — RECEIPTS (FDD pages 80–246)
What This Means (2025 FDD)
According to the 2025 Sonesta Simply Suites FDD, court decisions in Washington State may supersede the franchise agreement or related agreements concerning the franchisee's relationship with Sonesta Simply Suites. This means that certain provisions within the franchise agreement could be rendered unenforceable if they conflict with Washington state law or are addressed differently by court rulings.
This is particularly relevant to provisions summarized in Item 17 of the FDD, which covers various aspects of the franchise relationship, including termination and renewal. Franchisees in Washington should be aware that state law and court decisions take precedence over the terms outlined in the franchise agreement.
In the event of a legal dispute, any arbitration or mediation involving a Sonesta Simply Suites franchise purchased in Washington must occur within the state, unless both parties agree to an alternative location or the arbitrator/mediator determines otherwise. Additionally, if litigation is necessary and not precluded by the franchise agreement, a franchisee can bring an action in Washington if it arises from the sale of the franchise or a violation of the Washington Franchise Investment Protection Act.
Furthermore, any attempt to waive compliance with the Washington Franchise Investment Protection Act within the franchise agreement is void, unless it is part of a negotiated settlement with independent legal representation after the agreement is already in effect, or in specific cases related to franchise renewal or transfer as outlined in RCW 19.100.220(2). Provisions that unreasonably restrict the statute of limitations for claims under the Act or limit rights and remedies, such as the right to a jury trial, may also be unenforceable.