ILCS » Chapter 815 · Act 705
Illinois Compiled Statutes

815 ILCS 705/41 (2026)

Waivers void

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(815 ILCS 705/41) (from Ch. 121 1/2, par. 1741)
    Sec. 41. Waivers void. Any condition, stipulation, or provision purporting to bind any person acquiring any franchise to waive compliance with any provision of this Act or any other law of this State is void. This Section shall not prevent any person from entering into a settlement agreement or executing a general release regarding a potential or actual lawsuit filed under any of the provisions of this Act, nor shall it prevent the arbitration of any claim pursuant to the provisions of Title 9 of the United States Code.
(Source: P.A. 88-256.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1998–2001 · leading case: Bishop v. We Care Hair Dev. Corp., 738 N.E.2d 610 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bishop v. We Care Hair Dev. Corp., 738 N.E.2d 610 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000). “This Section shall not prevent any person from entering into a settlement agreement or executing a general release regarding a potential or actual lawsuit filed under any of the provisions of this Act, nor shall it prevent the arbitration of any claim pursuant to the provisions…”
7-Eleven, Inc. v. Dar, 757 N.E.2d 515 (Ill. App. Ct. 2001). “Although not specifically stated as such, the basis for that conclusion appears to be contained in section 41 of the Act, which provides as follows: “Any condition, stipulation, or provision purporting to bind any person acquiring any franchise to waive compliance with any…”
To-Am Equip. Co., Inc. v. Mitsubishi Caterpillar Forklift Am., Inc., 152 F.3d 658 (7th Cir. 1998). “What does matter to this case is that these definitions under Illinois law were binding on the district court and they are binding on us. That is not, incidentally, because the distributorship agreement says so.”
7-Eleven, Inc. v. Dar, 748 N.E.2d 642 (Ill. App. Ct. 2001). “Although not specifically stated as such, the basis for that conclusion appears to be contained in section 41 of the Act, which provides as follows: “Any condition, stipulation, or provision purporting to bind any person acquiring any franchise to waive compliance with any…”
Bishop v. We Care Hair Dev. Corp. (Ill. App. Ct. 2000). “This Section shall not prevent any person from entering into a settlement agreement or executing a general release regarding a potential or actual lawsuit filed under any of the provisions of this Act, nor shall it prevent the arbitration of any claim pursuant to the provisions…”
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.