In Idaho, the following Dealer/Franchise Termination and Non-Renewal Laws, Fraud, and Franchise Industry-Specific Laws exist:

  • Idaho Does Not Have a Disclosure/Registration Franchise Law
  • Idaho Has a Hybrid Relationship/Termination Franchise Law
  • Idaho Does Not Have a General Business Opportunity Franchise Law
  • Idaho Has an Alcoholic Beverage Wholesaler/Franchise Law
  • Idaho Has an Equipment Dealer/Franchise Law
  • Idaho Does Not Have a Gasoline Dealer/Franchise Law
  • Idaho Does Not Have a Marine Dealer/Franchise Law
  • Idaho Has a Motor Vehicle Dealer/Franchise Law
  • Idaho Does Not Have a Motorcycle Dealer/Franchise Law
  • Idaho Does Not Have a Recreational and Power Sports Vehicle Dealer/Franchise Law
  • Idaho Does Have a Restaurant Liability Law

Idaho does not have a traditional franchise relationship statute; instead, it does have a Limitations on Right to Sue Law (“ILRSL”). Title 29, Chap. 1, Section 29-110. This Act first voids as against public policy venue or time for suit limitations provisions in a franchise agreement. “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.” This clause, however, does not apply to contractual provisions regarding arbitration so long as the contract does not require arbitration to be conducted outside the state of Idaho.

Second, the ILRSL voids any condition, stipulation or provision in a franchise agreement to the extent it purports to waive, or has the effect of waiving venue or jurisdiction of the state of Idaho's court system. In contrast, with regard to the “choice of law” question, the Act states that 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.

In Idaho, the following Dealer/Franchise Termination, Fraud and Non-Renewal Laws, and Franchise Industry-Specific Laws, are identified as follows:

Idaho State Franchise Disclosure/Registration Laws
No Idaho statute of general applicability. Franchisors must comply with the FTC franchise disclosure rule

Idaho State Franchise Relationship/Termination Laws
Limitations on Right to Sue Law
Idaho Code, Title 29, Chap. 1, Sec. 29-110

Idaho State Business Opportunity Laws
No statute of general applicability.
Business opportunity sellers must comply with the FTC business opportunity rule

Idaho Alcoholic Beverage Franchise/Wholesaler Laws
Idaho beer law, Idaho wine law
Idaho Code Ann. Tit. 23 Chap 10,and Chap. 11,Idaho Code Ann. Tit. 23, Chap. 13.

Idaho Equipment Franchise/Dealer Laws
Idaho farm equipment Franchise/Dealer law
Idaho Code. Ann. Tit. 28, Chap. 23,and Chap. 24.

Idaho Gasoline Franchise/Dealer Laws
Idaho Has No Franchise-Specific Law in this Area

Idaho Marine Franchise/Dealer Laws
Idaho Has No Franchise-Specific Law in this Area

Idaho Motor Vehicle Franchise/Dealer Laws
Idaho motor vehicle Franchise/Dealer law
Idaho Code Ann. Tit. 49, Chap 16

Idaho Motorcycle Franchise/Dealer Laws
Idaho Has No Franchise-Specific Law in this Area

Idaho Recreational and Powersports Vehicle Franchise/Dealer Laws
Idaho Has No Franchise-Specific Law in this Area

Idaho Restaurants
Idaho Commonsense Consumption Act
Idaho Code Ann. Tit. 39, Chap. 87

In General

Contract provision for final sidewalk estimate, not restricting either party from enforcing rights by usual proceedings, held not invalid (C.S. 5670).  White v. Village of Soda Springs, 1928, 46 Idaho 153, 266 P. 795

Admiralty

Federal maritime law as applied to forum selection clause in passenger's international contract with cruise ship company did not permit state court to apply state statute that voided any contract stipulation or condition restricting enforcement of rights under the contract by the usual proceedings in the ordinary tribunals; any exception to protect strong public policy of forum was not controlling in international commercial agreement outside of American waters.  I.C. § 29-110.  Fisk v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., 2005, 108 P.3d 990, 141 Idaho 290

Federal preemption of the field of maritime law required enforcement of forum selection clause in passenger's international contract with cruise ship company, even though state statute voided any contract stipulation or condition restricting enforcement of rights under the contract by the usual proceedings in the ordinary tribunals.  I.C. § 29-110.  Fisk v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., 2005, 108 P.3d 990, 141 Idaho 290

Commercial Disputes

The right to litigate commercial disputes in court is generally available but it can be contractually relinquished.  Hecla Min. Co. v. Bunker Hill Co., 1980, 101 Idaho 557, 617 P.2d 861

Forum Selection Clauses

Forum selection clause requiring litigation in court in Miami, Florida, was enforceable in passenger's international contract with cruise ship company, despite passenger's lack of bargaining power and non-negotiated nature of the form contract;  case involved maritime tort on the ship off Mexican coast, and passenger did not raise issues of inconvenience, fraud, or overreaching.  Fisk v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., 2005, 108 P.3d 990, 141 Idaho 290

Under Florida law, forum selection provision of contract would not be enforced with respect to suit brought in Idaho in view of Idaho statute voiding forum selection contracts.  I.C. § 29-110.  Cerami-Kote, Inc. v. Energywave Corp., 1989, 116 Idaho 56, 773 P.2d 1143

In view of C.S. §§ 6064-6666, relating to change of venue, and section 5670, providing that stipulation in contract restricting party from enforcing rights thereunder by usual proceedings in ordinary tribunals is void, provision in note authorizing payee to commence and maintain action to enforce payment thereof in particular county, irrespective of residence of maker, is unenforceable.  McCarty v. Herrick, 1925, 41 Idaho 529, 240 P. 192

Arbitration Clauses

A provision in a building contract for the submission of any differences to arbitration, and that the arbitrator's decision shall be final, is void under Rev.St.1887, § 3229, providing that any stipulation in a contract by which a party is restricted from enforcing his rights under the contract in the courts shall be void.  Huber v. St. Joseph's Hospital, 1905, 11 Idaho 631, 83 P. 768

Survival Clauses

Survival clause in real estate purchase agreement between vendor and purchaser, which stated that provision containing warranties and representations regarding quality of groundwater supply for property's irrigation system would survive closing or termination of agreement for one-year period, provided one-year extension for an actionable breach to occur, rather than contractual reduction of applicable five-year statute of limitations for written contracts under Idaho law to one year, which would be void as against public policy.  Pinnacle Great Plains Operating Co., LLC v. Wynn Dewsnup Revocable Trust, 2014, 996 F.Supp.2d 1026

Waiver of Right of Appeal

A clause in a promissory note waiving all rights of appeal is void under C.S. § 5670, and is contrary to public policy.  General Motors Acceptance Corporation v. Talbott, 1923, 38 Idaho 13, 219 P. 1058

Insurance

Fire insurers' attempts to limit to one year insured's time for filing action on policies were void under statute which nullifies contractual stipulations on limitation period, despite statute which requires that fire policies be issued on New York standard form, which contains language indicating one-year limitation period.  I.C. §§ 5-216, 29-110, 41-2401.  Sunshine Min. Co. v. Allendale Mut. Ins. Co., 1984, 107 Idaho 25, 684 P.2d 1002

To extent that statute which requires that fire policy be issued on New York standard form, which contains language indicating one-year limitation period for filing action on policy, purports to change statute of limitations for action on policy from five years, which is limitation for action on contracts generally, to one year, it is unconstitutional and void.  I.C. §§ 5-216, 29-110, 41-2401.  Sunshine Min. Co. v. Allendale Mut. Ins. Co., 1984, 107 Idaho 25, 684 P.2d 1002

Health and accident policy provision barring recovery unless action was brought within two years from expiration of time within which proof of loss was required held not to bar action on policy instituted after two-year period had elapsed in view of statute invalidating restrictions in contract limiting right to sue and statute providing five-year limitation period in actions on written contracts as against contention that statute invalidating provision in life, accident, and health insurance limiting time to sue to less than one year was applicable and validated any limitation over one year, where title of originating act of latter statute manifested legislative intent not to change statute of limitations as to written contracts (Code 1932, §§ 5-216, 28-110, 40-1309, 40-1311).  Harding v. Mutual Ben. Health & Accident Ass'n, 1934, 55 Idaho 131, 39 P.2d 306

By-law of benefit insurance society that no lapse of time or disappearance of any member shall entitle beneficiary to recover without proof of actual death, and that absence of any member unheard of shall not be evidence of death, is void where the certificate provides that it shall be payable on death of member.  Gaffney v. Royal Neighbors of America, 1918, 31 Idaho 549, 174 P. 1014

Vendor and Purchaser

Provision for surrender of premises and forfeiture of payments on default fault was not contrary to statute (C.S. § 5670).  McCutcheon v. Thomas, 1928, 47 Idaho 188, 273 P. 950

Compromise and Settlement

Also listed as Settlements

Stipulation settling state Transportation Board's administrative action against electric sign company to compel removal of sign was not void, where stipulation did not deny company the opportunity to enforce its rights before ordinary tribunals in the usual proceedings.  I.C. § 29-110.  Young Electric Sign Co. v. State ex rel. Winder, 2001, 25 P.3d 117, 135 Idaho 804, petition for review filed

Top Rated Franchise Attorney Avvo Franchise Lawyer Symbol Avvo Franchise Lawyer Antitrust Symbol Finance Monthly Global Award Winner Lead Counsel logo BBB of Washington DC Washington DC Chamber of Commerce Lawyers of Distinction logo

Contact Us

Goldstein Law Firm, PLLC

1629 K St. NW, Suite 300,
Washington, DC 20006

Phone: 202-293-3947
Fax: 202-315-2514

Free Consultation

Free Consultation