Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 29-110 (2026)

Limitations on right to sue under contract or Franchise agreement.

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IClegislature.idaho.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Limitations on right to sue under contract or Franchise agreement.

(1) Every stipulation or condition in a contract, by which any party thereto is restricted from enforcing his rights under the contract in Idaho tribunals, or which limits the time within which he may thus enforce his rights, is void as it is against the public policy of Idaho. Nothing in this section shall affect contract provisions relating to arbitration so long as the contract does not require arbitration to be conducted outside the state of Idaho.

(2) Any condition, stipulation or provision in a franchise agreement is void to the extent it purports to waive, or has the effect of waiving, venue or jurisdiction of the state of Idaho’s court system. Any condition, stipulation or provision in a franchise agreement, to the extent it purports to assert, or has the effect of asserting, the choice of law is enforceable. This subsection shall apply to any franchise agreement entered into or renewed on or after July 1, 2003, by any person who at the time of entering into or renewing such franchise agreement was a resident of this state or incorporated or organized under the laws of this state.

(3) As used in this section "franchise agreement" means a written contract or agreement by which:

(a) A person ("franchisee") is granted the right to engage in the business of offering, selling or distributing goods or services under a marketing plan or system prescribed in substantial part by a third party ("franchisor");

(b) The operation of the franchisee’s business pursuant to such plan or system is substantially associated with the franchisor’s trademark, service mark, trade name, logotype, advertising or other commercial symbol designating the franchisor of such plan or system; and

(c) The franchisee is required to pay the franchisor one thousand dollars ($1,000) or more for the right to transact business pursuant to the plan or system. Such payments shall not include amounts paid:

(i) As a reasonable service charge to the issuer of a credit card by an establishment accepting or honoring the credit card; or

(ii) For the purchase of goods at a bona fide wholesale price.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 25 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1972–2026 · leading case: Gemini Tech., Inc. v. Smith & Wesson Corp., 931 F.3d 911 (9th Cir. 2019).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Gemini Tech., Inc. v. Smith & Wesson Corp., 931 F.3d 911 (9th Cir. 2019). · cites it 11× “The panel held that the district court abused its discretion in enforcing the forum-selection clause that contravened the strong public policy announced by Idaho Code § 29-110 (1), and was therefore unenforceable; and remanded so that the district court could apply a traditional…”

T3 Enters., Inc. v. Safeguard Bus. Sys., Inc., 435 P.3d 518 (Idaho 2019). · cites it 20× “This Court stated that because the "forum selection clause violates the public policy expressed in I.C. § 29-110, we conclude that the Florida courts would refuse to enforce the clause.”

Cerami-Kote, Inc. v. Energywave Corp., 773 P.2d 1143 (Idaho 1989). · cites it 20× “Assuming that the district court did not err in failing to apply the choice of law provision, did the court err, in applying Idaho law, by concluding that Idaho Code § 29-110 bars enforcement of the forum selection clause in the contract? I Idaho Code § 28-1-105 (1) provides…”

Fisk v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., 108 P.3d 990 (Idaho 2005). · cites it 12× “That statute provides that “[e]very stipulation or condition in a contract, by which any party thereto is restricted from enforcing his rights under the contract by the usual proceedings in the ordinary tribunals, or which limits the time within which he may thus enforce his…”

Sunshine Mining Co. v. Allendale Mut. Ins., 684 P.2d 1002 (Idaho 1984). · cites it 12× “ Every stipulation or condition in a contract, by which any party thereto is restricted from enforcing his rights under the contract by the usual proceedings in the original tribunals, or which limits the time within which he may thus enforce his rights, is void.”

Young Elec. Sign Co. v. State, 25 P.3d 117 (Idaho 2001). · cites it 4× “Idaho Code § 29-110 , “limitations on right to sue,” provides: Every stipulation or condition in a contract, by which any party thereto is restricted from enforcing his rights under the contract by the usual proceedings in the ordinary tribunals, or which limits the time within…”

Erica Davis v. Cranfield Aerospace Solutions, 71 F.4th 1154 (9th Cir. 2023). “Given that forum-selection clauses are unenforceable against Idaho residents as matter of public policy, see Idaho Code § 29-110 , in such circumstances a court in that state could surely exercise personal jurisdiction over Cranfield for the same reasons DAVIS V.”

Long v. Holland Am. Line Westours, Inc., 26 P.3d 430 (Alaska 2001). · cites it 2× “1985) (applying Idaho Code § 29-110 (1980), which declares "void" any contract condition "which limits the time within which [a party] may thus enforce his rights"), on which the court's opinion relies for a variety of propositions.”

Ponderosa Paint Mfg., Inc. v. Yack, 870 P.2d 663 (Idaho Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “This is not a forum selection clause such as that found to be violative of I.C. § 29-110 in Cerami-Kote, Inc. v. Energywave Corp.”

Frizzell v. DeYoung, 415 P.3d 341 (Idaho 2018). · cites it 2× “In this case, to the extent the TEDRA agreement purported to hold Edwin harmless for claims of future negligence and breaches of fiduciary duty, such portions of the agreement are void as against public policy.”

Coeur D'Alene Lakeshore Owners & Taxpayers, Inc. v. Kootenai Cnty., 661 P.2d 756 (Idaho 1983). · cites it 2× “I.C. § 29-110. Further, we will not speculate, and the record discloses nothing to indicate, that the parties to the contract intended an unlawful construction.”

ADT Sec. Servs., Inc. v. Apex Alarm, LLC, 430 F. Supp. 2d 1199 (D. Colo. 2006). “Idaho Code Ann. § 29-110 (1); Cerami-Kote, Inc.”

Show all 25 citing cases →

— Idaho Code § 29-110(1) — 6 cases

T3 Enters., Inc. v. Safeguard Bus. Sys., Inc., 435 P.3d 518 (Idaho 2019). “This Court stated that because the "forum selection clause violates the public policy expressed in I.C. § 29-110, we conclude that the Florida courts would refuse to enforce the clause.”

Off-Spec Solutions LLC v. Transp. Investors LLC (Idaho 2021).

T3 Enter. v. Safeguard Bus. Sys (Idaho 2019).

Eagle Rock Timber, Inc. v. Carothers Constr. Inc. (D. Idaho 2022).

Porter v. Remmich, 553 P.3d 925 (Idaho 2024).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.