Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 80C.21 (2026)

Waivers Void

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Any condition, stipulation or provision, including any choice of law provision, purporting to bind any person who, at the time of acquiring a franchise is a resident of this state, or, in the case of a partnership or corporation, organized or incorporated under the laws of this state, or purporting to bind a person acquiring any franchise to be operated in this state to waive compliance or which has the effect of waiving compliance with any provision of sections 80C.01 to 80C.22 or any rule or order thereunder is void.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 41 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1983–2024 · leading case: Randall v. Lady of Am. Franchise Corp., 532 F. Supp. 2d 1071 (D. Minnesota 2007).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Randall v. Lady of Am. Franchise Corp., 532 F. Supp. 2d 1071 (D. Minnesota 2007). · cites it 20× “■ Anti-Waiver Provision of Minnesota Franchise Act Plaintiffs also argue that Lady of America is not entitled to summary judgment on the basis of the disclaimers in the UFOC and franchise agreement because those disclaimers are void under § 80C.21 of the Minnesota Franchise Act.…”

Hockey Enter. Inc. v. Total Hockey Worldwide, LLC, 762 F. Supp. 2d 1138 (D. Minnesota 2011). · cites it 25× “The relevant Minnesota law is Minn. Stat. § 80C.21, which provides: 2 80C.”

Twin Cities Galleries, LLC v. Media Arts Grp., Inc., 415 F. Supp. 2d 967 (D. Minnesota 2006). · cites it 14× “Minn.Stat. § 80C.21 (1988). In 1989, the Eighth Circuit recognized, in the context of a choice-of-law analysis, that the MFA undeniably evinces a “policy in favor of offering franchisees in Minnesota remedies greater than those available under traditional common law.”

Modern Comput. Sys., Inc. v. Modern Banking Sys., Inc. Modern Banking Sys. of S. Wisconsin, 871 F.2d 734 (8th Cir. 1989). · cites it 3× “It becomes in effect a waiver of all rights statutorily afforded to Modern Computers, a waiver rendered void by Minn.Stat. § 80C.21. *743 Finally, the majority relies heavily on Tele-Save Merchandising v.”

Healy v. Carlson Travel Network Assocs., Inc., 227 F. Supp. 2d 1080 (D. Minnesota 2002). · cites it 7× “” Minn.Stat. § 80C.21 (2001) (emphasis added).”

Moxie Venture L.L.C. v. UPS Store, Inc., 156 F. Supp. 3d 967 (D. Minnesota 2016). · cites it 8× “provided for by the laws of the jurisdiction.” (Mem. in Opp’n at 34-35 (quoting Minn.”

Carlock v. Pillsbury Co., 719 F. Supp. 791 (D. Minnesota 1989). · cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 80C.21. Application of New York law would allow the defendants to avoid the provisions of Minnesota’s Franchise Act.”

Wave Form Sys., Inc. v. AMS Sales Corp., 73 F. Supp. 3d 1052 (D. Minnesota 2014). · cites it 4× “See Minn.Stat. § 80C.21. Prior to Modem Computer, the anti-waiver provision did not explicitly include choice of law provisions.”

Sound of Music Co. v. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co., 477 F.3d 910 (7th Cir. 2007). “Minn.Stat. § 80C.21 (2006). 3M argues that this provision does not help Sound of Music, as by its terms, the Minnesota Franchise Act's anti-waiver provision only applies to franchise owners who were residents of Minnesota at the time of acquisition or to persons acquiring…”

Banbury v. Omnitrition Int'l, Inc., 533 N.W.2d 876 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 2× “Moreover, in Minn.Stat. § 80C.21 (1994), the legislature expressed an intent to protect its citizens with its own laws by voiding, to some extent, choice-of-law provisions in agreements like this.”

Scott's S&S Inc. v. Steak N Shake Enter., Inc, 765 F.3d 776 (7th Cir. 2014). “In addition, nothing in the offering circular or agreement can abrogate or reduce any of your rights as provided for in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 80C, or your rights to any procedure, forum, or remedies provided for by the laws of the jurisdiction. The Company reserves the…”

Ellering v. Sellstate Realty Sys. Network, Inc., 801 F. Supp. 2d 834 (D. Minnesota 2011). · cites it 2× “at 1087-89 (citing Minn.Stat. § 80C.21). Randall concluded, inter alia, that because the anti-waiver provision was intended to apply broadly, it precluded a franchisor from including a “general disclaimer” in a UFOC waiving a claim based on the franchisor’s false projection of…”

Show all 41 citing cases →

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.