Franchisor 101: A Broad Brush Addendum

Lewitt Hackman

A Virginia district court dismissed a lawsuit filed by 360 Painting, a franchisor of residential and commercial painting services, concluding an addendum to the parties’ franchise agreement precluded 360 Painting’s claims for breach of contract and equitable relief.

360 Painting and an individual franchisee entered into a franchise agreement, granting the franchisee the right to operate a 360 Painting franchise. The parties executed an addendum when signing the franchise agreement, waiving the parties’ rights to recover unpaid or future royalty or other fees owed post-termination.

Soon after the franchise agreement was signed, the franchisee formed a corporation, AASK Services, and began operating the franchised business under that entity, although the franchise agreement was never formally assigned to AASK Services. Ultimately, 360 Painting terminated the franchise agreement and filed suit against the individual franchisee and AASK.

360 Painting alleged it suffered damages, including lost royalties from breach of the agreement, the franchisee misappropriating 360 Painting’s trade secrets, and the Franchisee’s disparaging remarks on social media. The franchisee argued the addendum to the franchise agreement precluded 360 Painting’s right to damages, as both parties waived their right to recover post-termination royalties and fees. 360 Painting contended the addendum was unenforceable due to its reference to a non-existent section of the franchise agreement and that it only applied to the individual franchisee since it had not been executed by AASK.

The court found the parties intended to include the waiver provisions in the addendum, and the reference to a non-existent provision in the franchise agreement was typographical error. The court rejected 360 Painting’s argument that the addendum was only effective as to the individual owner of the franchise entity, noting the owner explicitly signed the franchise agreement and addendum in his individual capacity but intended to transition to a corporation soon after execution—the franchise entity commenced operations under the name AASK one week after the individual franchisee signed the franchise agreement and addendum. Although the franchise agreement and addendum had not been formally assigned or transferred to AASK, the court rejected 360 Painting’s assertion that the addendum did not apply to AASK.

Franchisors should work with franchise counsel to carefully structure their agreements and any addenda or amendments to the franchise agreement. Franchisors should understand if they are giving up a right, such as a right to recover damages, and the consequences of such provisions in their franchise agreements and addenda.

360 Painting, LLC v. Misiph, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121493 (W.D. Va. July 13, 2023)

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Lewitt Hackman | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Lewitt Hackman

Lewitt Hackman on:

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide
- hide