Wash. Rev. Code » Title 19 · Chapter 19.100
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 19.100.080 (2026)

Unlawful acts—Sale of franchise—Terms of franchise agreement

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) It is unlawful for any person to sell a franchise that is registered or required to be registered under this chapter without first furnishing to the prospective franchisee a copy of the franchisor's current disclosure document, as described in RCW 19.100.040 and 19.100.070, at least fourteen calendar days prior to the execution by the prospective franchisee of any binding franchise or other agreement, or at least fourteen calendar days before the prospective franchisee signs a binding agreement with, or makes any payment to, the franchisor or an affiliate in connection with the proposed franchise sale.
(2) It is unlawful for any franchisor to alter unilaterally and materially the terms and conditions of the basic franchise agreement or any related agreements attached to the disclosure document without furnishing the prospective franchisee with a copy of each revised agreement at least seven calendar days before the prospective franchisee signs the revised agreement. Changes to an agreement that arise out of negotiations initiated by the prospective franchisee do not trigger this seven calendar day period.
[ 2012 c 121 s 6; 1991 c 226 s 6; 1972 ex.s. c 116 s 6; 1971 ex.s. c 252 s 8.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1981–2020 · leading case: BP West Coast Prods. LLC v. SKR Inc., 989 F. Supp. 2d 1109 (W.D. Wash. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
BP West Coast Prods. LLC v. SKR Inc., 989 F. Supp. 2d 1109 (W.D. Wash. 2013). “RCW 19.100.080(2)(c), RCW 19.120.080(2)(b).”
Peck of Chehalis, Inc. v. C. K. of W. Am., Inc., 304 N.W.2d 91 (N.D. 1981). “Before entering into this agreement, CKWA provided Clark and Grose with an “offering circular” con *94 taining information of the nature specified in Wash.Rev.Code § 19.100.080. That section of the Franchise Investment Protection Act of the State of Washington requires…”
Thompson v. Atl. Richfield Co., 663 F. Supp. 206 (W.D. Wash. 1986). “RCW 19.100.080. By regulation, the disclosures are to be made in an “Offering Circular” patterned on the Uniform Franchise Registration Application, more frequently referred to as “The Uniform Franchise Offering Circular” (UFOC).”
Thompson v. Atl. Richfield Co., 649 F. Supp. 969 (W.D. Wash. 1986). “RCW 19.100.080. By regulation, the disclosures are to be made in an “Offering Circular” patterned on the Uniform Franchise Registration Application, more frequently referred to as “The Uniform Franchise Offering Circular” (UFOC).”
Velicer v. Falconhead Capital LLC (W.D. Wash. 2020). · cites it 7× “Velicer, Plaintiffs assert 5 (1) a claim for violation of Washington’s Franchise Investment Protection Act (“FIPA”), 6 RCW 19.100.080, in the sale of the franchises and ADA (Compl.”
Something Sweet, LLC v. Nick-N-Willy's Franchise Co., 237 P.3d 923 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “RCW 19.100.080. ¶14 Here, it is undisputed that Nick-N-Willy’s properly registered its franchise offering according to FIPA’s requirements and that a copy of its offering circular and proposed franchise agreement were delivered to the Brandenburgs more than 10 business days…”
JTH Tax LLC v. Kelly (W.D. Wash. 2020). “§§ 1 and 2, violations of Washington’s “franchise 5 disclosure requirements” found at RCW 19.100.080, breach of contract, breach of the implied 6 covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violations Washington’s Franchise Investment Act, 7 RCW 19.”
Something Sweet v. Nick-N-Willy's Franchise, 237 P.3d 923 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “RCW 19.100.080. *928 ¶ 14 Here, it is undisputed that Nick-N-Willy's properly registered its franchise offering according to FIPA's requirements and that a copy of its offering circular and proposed franchise agreement were delivered to the Brandenburgs more than 10 business…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 19.100.080(2)(c) — 1 case
BP West Coast Prods. LLC v. SKR Inc., 989 F. Supp. 2d 1109 (W.D. Wash. 2013). “RCW 19.100.080(2)(c), RCW 19.120.080(2)(b).”
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.