Judge Dismisses Federal Claims against Quiznos without Prejudice
The lawsuit was filed as a class action by six Illinois franchisees on April 19, 2007, against Quiznos and its related entities. But it also named two corporate officers and six of the company's Illinois employees. The group claimed they have all suffered losses in connection with the franchise agreements they signed with Quiznos, and alleged ten claims of action. They asserted violations of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), the Sherman Act, the Illinois Antitrust Act, the Illinois Franchise Disclosure Act of 1987, and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. Their claims also included that of common law fraud, breach of contract and breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
Quiznos moved to dismiss all their claims on June 8, 2007.
Judge Pallmeyer went through each of the ten claims asserted by the franchisees, in explaining her decision. She also showed the comparisons between the Illinois action and the Wisconsin litigation, stating they were almost identical. She states that Quiznos is correct that, in light of
the explicit and comprehensive disclosures in the UFOC and Franchise Agreement, plaintiff franchisees cannot sustain any claim predicated on the contractual terms in question and dismisses Counts I and II (RICO), III (Sherman Act), IV (Illinois Antitrust Act), and VII (common law fraud). She states, "This includes all of Plaintiffs’ federal claims. In general, when all federal claims have been dismissed prior to trial, the trial court should leave the pendent claims to the state courts."
Quiznos Pleased with Decision; Plans More Energy Toward Franchisee Profitability
Richard Emmett, Quiznos' Executive VP and Chief Counsel, said they are obviously very pleased with the decision. "It's what we expected. It is totally consistent not only with what we thought but with what Judge Griesbach ruled in Wisconsin." He added that this is the third case that has been dismissed, one which was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff's themselves without the court even taking into account any discovery. Emmett said, "Now multiple courts have determined that a cause of action just wasn't stated. So we are pleased with the result, but we are even more pleased to hopefully have this behind us." Emmett said they can now spend more time and energy toward increasing franchisee profitability. He concludes, "That has been our goal all of last year, all of this year and into the future. That's what we want to concentrate on."
Franchisees Will Vigorously Pursue State Claims
But in view of this latest decision, Justin Klein, Marks & Klein, attorney for the six Illinois franchisees, said they were evaluating their options with respect to the federal claims the judge dismissed. "It is critical to understand that the court dismissed them "without prejudice" and has ordered the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint by April 21," Klein said. And he continued, "As we did in Wisconsin, we will take the judge’s advice and vigorously pursue our state claims, including those alleging violations of Illinois' Franchise Disclosure Act and its Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act."
Judge Daniel's recent decision in Colorado stated that Colorado's consumer fraud statute applied to their franchisees there, and Klein said they see no meaningful distinction between the Colorado Consumer Protection Act and what is set out by the Illinois Legislature. He explained, "Indeed, Judge Pallmeyer states in her decision that these claims are "not obviously flawed" and instructed us to proceed with them along with our other state law claims. As I have stated in the past, our legal team will continue to fight for the Quiznos franchisees until they receive justice--wherever that fight has to be fought and on whatever terms. Real injuries occurred here to real people and the law is on our side."
--
Related readings:
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| Judge Pallmeyer Decision.PDF | 66.18 KB |
Guest says - " So yes, for the most part, the bar napkin negotiation days are gone!"
I say - Thank God! You'd have to be an idiot to think that an agreement sketched out on any kind of napkin bar or otherwise is a good idea.
In fact these most revered and holy bar napkins you speak so fondly of were the gensis of modern day franchise disclosure laws developed in the 1970s.
The Truth Shall Set You Free!
TIF
The Truth Shall Set You Free!
TIF
Fair enough! But I gotta tell ya that dishonesty in business is not a recent innovation there have been swindlers, cheaters and snake oil salesman for time in memoriam.
Heck I don't know how old you are but I have never met an actual snake oil salesman. Have you?
The Truth Shall Set You Free!
TIF
P.S. Charles Ponzi died in 1949.
The Truth Shall Set You Free!
TIF
there are rules to follow. The sales person is responsible for their disclosers.
I believe our society is going down hill as we become more of a franchise, (own your own business?) world. Ethics does not go hand and hand with business anymore. I always believed you cannot seperate the two.
Yet as I get older I hear more people seperating the two. Like one friend of mine quoted to me, "That is ethics not business." I still strongly believe you can't seperate the two.
Is franchising the only business that has permission because of the language of the UFOC that zors put there so the meaning can be interperated different ways. Like projected new stores to open in the next year. A reader could think, "Wow this company is going somewhere." Another reader could think, "Hmm projected, where did they get those numbers? Do they have a formula that they get those numbers?" Or another reader will think, "There is no way to project future success. This is full of crap."
I believe by using words that could be interpertated in so many ways this is another way they reel you in. I believe everyone read a UFOC/FDD with discerning eyes because then you can spot the misleading statements. Plus you will spot the obvious nature of the UFOC. ( To protect the zor and only the zor and no one else.)
I know the days of contracting and agreements on a bar napkin are over,
My reply:
Depends on the man. They are not over for all. In the old days people understood that the court of justice might not necessarily occur in a court room proper. That reality acted as a common sense brake on many would be con man. Today in this feminized society people feel free to be dishonorable because seldom is justice administered, just penalty of law.
FuwaFuwaUsagi
"Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers."
FuwaFuwaUsagi
"Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers."
It use to be that girls were girls and men were men.
I see more men that think of a spouse as a second income and not the woman that will be a mother to their children and provide a happy, orderly, clean and safe place for their man to come home to..
Providing a home life for your family is a full time job. Maybe I am old fashion in my thinking but isn't being a good wife and mother more important?
Although I do see some men who are men. Those men I respect to the fullest.
Now I see more women wanting to take their place in the coporate world. Who take pride in how much money they can make. Leaving maids to clean their home, nannys to raise their children.
That has always been my dream in life to be a mother to my children.
Maybe many boys who are raised with a successful business women get that message that woman is suppose to bring home the bacon, fry in a pan and be a mother too. When they become men they convert it to their reality.
I agree Fuwa men should be men and girls should be girls.
I believe training a man to be a man begins in childhood. And vice versa. Maybe parents need to ingrain this in their children's heads. More business classes should be taught in schools so when that boy becomes a man he will know how to deal with the business world. I believe education is important for a girl. As a back up plan in case something happens they will have a good job to support their family. Yet the mother can teach their son to be a man. By not babying them when they reach their teens. Treat them like men and they will be men. (Not their baby boy anymore.)
As far as a feminized society we are not taught by our parents or in our school system to be any different. Many learn it by the school of hard knocks and higher education.
As far as legal knowlege. Many people do not understand the law. Perhaps that should be taught in our schools also.
Maybe that is why people get in trouble in the world of franchising.
Girls were never girls, and men have not improved with the passing years.
The male led societies have brought us to wars and economic disasters, while the "girls" were ooften left abandonned to be the only support for the kids.
Men, just to give a recent example, decided to burn food to try to get the price of gas down. Genius, what?
We were taught many false notions by inadequate leadership seeking to avoid being called to account. Were women really condemned to suffering because Eve introduced Adam to fresh fruit?
Their revenge is now that they will become newly established franchisors and rip off men by the thousands - to get even?
--
Richard Solomon, FranchiseRemedies.com, has over 45 years experience with franchise litigation and crisis management. He is a graduate of The Citadel and The University of Michigan Law School
Richard Solomon, FranchiseRemedies.com, has over 45 years experience with franchise litigation and crisis management. He is a graduate of The Citadel and The University of Michigan Law School
Given the focus on vendor kickbacks and supra-competitive pricing, I am struck by the line from Quiznos offering circular:
The Judge quotes this at page 4, but then at page 12 the Judge makes a stunning decision:
The Judge finds it of some importance that (p. 11):
The Judge agrees with the Wisconsin judge that the franchisees might have a claim for breach of contract, but from the tenor of her ruling one suspects that she would not have much sympathy for such a claim were she to be sitting on the state court bench.
The 7th Circuit also plays a role. As we all know, that court is famed for Judge Posner's "Chicago School" jurisprudence. Now, I think that the definition of relevant market as being the "QSR toasted sandwich franchises" is a bit of a stretch. But the finding that the market is all franchise systems (p. 16) is the opposite extreme.
Another interesting distinction is found at footnote 2. Now I happen to disagree with the reasoning such as found in fn2, but as I keep saying ad nauseum on this board:
courts find franchise purchasers to be sophisticated businesspersons, not "vulnerable consumers or helpless workers."
Particularly in light of the IFAs own marketing efforts in recent years, I suspect this distinction will become increasingly difficult to sustain: franchising is in part a method of purchasing labor, a substitute for direct hiring of workers. Indeed, the zor can exercise more control over a franchisee than an employee, and in our article we had cited cases both in the US and abroad discussing this reality.
But before zee-side advocates jump for joy, I would point out that were it to come before the 7th Circuit today, the great body of labor/wage& hour legislation taken for granted by most of us would likely be given a rather hostile reception. Times have changed, and if we look for example at the enforceability of ADR clauses in cases involving vindication of federal law claims by employees we can see that much of the federal judiciary is amenable to the idea that folks should fend for themselves.
Carefully reading Judge Pallmeyer's decision, we see her belief that the Quizno's franchisees should have expected to be gouged by their franchisor.
It is about as close as one will find a federal judge coming to state that people who buy a franchise deserve what they get. (Before anyone gives me the 'breach of contract' lecture, see my comment above; and let's see how far Klein gets with this in state court).
Whether you agree with Pallmeyer or not, her decision is well within the current mainstream case law. Anyone contemplating a franchise purchase should read it carefully.
(But then again, on BMM we have zees complaining that they are not given enough information at the same time the zees complain that the UFOC is too long and too hard to read. No wonder Webster is getting cranky recently.)
Paul Steinberg
Franchisee Attorney, New York City, Ph: 212-529-5400
Paul Steinberg, Franchisee Attorney, New York City, Ph: 212-529-5400
Judge Pallmeyer essentially dismissed the federal claims because she found that the franchise purchasers should have read their paperwork before signing the contract. Federal judges do tend to be strict in booting matters to state court if they can, which is what she did here.
As a practical matter, state courts are more amenable to the type of claims being raised here, but will still be a tough fight in state court. However, the fact remains that zees need to start paying attention to the written agreement and not to the sweet talk of the franchise salesperson.
As to the person who posted about hopes for a big jury verdict: remember that getting in front of a jury is a lot easier said than done.
Mr. Emmett's prior swipes at Mr. Klein are misplaced: Justin Klein's track record is a reflection of how difficult it is to win a case on the equities when the law is not in your favor. Klein has done as good a job as anyone can, and state law claims are a better shot than federal--Emmett shouldn't be counting his chickens quite yet.
Paul Steinberg
Franchisee Attorney, New York City, Ph: 212-529-5400
Paul Steinberg, Franchisee Attorney, New York City, Ph: 212-529-5400
This comment has been moved here.
Sorry to break up the party but postings related to the issue of government regulation are not appropriate here. Comments under a news story should be about the news story -- the merits of the Northern Illinois District Court's ruling on Quiznos.
There's a lot of meat in the attachment and in the story to discuss.
The community already has a long-standing forum on government regulation. Forums are meant for discussion and debates on long-standing topics. Some of our posters already know that but choose to ignore protocol and so the whole thread on UFOC and government regulation has now been moved.
Sorry.
Mr. Blue MauMau
Community Umpire
Below are the facts, not my feelings, on this case and my personal experiences with Quiznos. incidentally, I owned, operated and partnered in numerous Quiznos stores in several states, so I know that of which I speak:
That is not to say that I have not also lost a lot of money in several other ventures. In every case what was important was who I became, not what I made. Who I am today is in part due to the lessons, friendships, and experiences I obtained while with Quiznos. What Quiznos taught me is how to make things work for you no matter what the obstacles. Those waiting on the court to redress their losses may be waiting a very long time.
Ok, I will bite. How do we know anything that you posted is true? That you are not a complete shill for Q?
Michael Webster PhD LLB
Franchise News
Michael Webster, a franchisee attorney in Toronto, Ontario, publishes a website on business opportunities and franchises called "The BizOp News"
Come on Paul, what's going on with you trying to make a post about the actual forum topic?
Unfortunately, this post will be missed by most people because some people are too caught up in the number of pages in the Quizno's UFOC.
1. I am not sure who is stupider, the Judge or the franchisee's attorney. The entire point of item 8 disclosure is to allow you to compare franchise systems. Franchise A with royalty rate B and kickback C, might be a better deal that Franchise D with royalty rate E and kickback F. If the moron system doesn't disclose what the numerical rate C and F are, then you cannot compare. If the moron attorney doesn't make this point, you lose the case. (Ironically, it is very pro franchisor attorneys that make this point about comparing systems.) Yet another small pleading point.
2. Franchisees who cannot read, and don't employ attorneys, including Canadian attorneys, who can read will lose their shirt. Judges are saying: too bad, so sad.
3. UFOCs are long and complicated- why do you think that you should be able to understand what is being said without expert help.
I end this note with a recent story. Someone contacted me about franchise x. They were going to buy a US territory for x. X is a complete and utter freaking disaster - but with great bs advertising. The prospect asked me why I thought X was a piece of poo. I said that the mismatch between the contract and marketing was so large, in general, to qualify X as a piece of poo.
Now did the prospect want to know more? No, the idiot wanted me to validate his choice of poo.
Lucky him, he will only lose around 70k.
Michael Webster PhD LLB
Franchise News
Michael Webster, a franchisee attorney in Toronto, Ontario, publishes a website on business opportunities and franchises called "The BizOp News"
He didn''t have an uphill battle on the law. He didn't know the law.
Therre are no antitrust claims in tie in vendors.
Where the contract provides for designated vendors, having to comply with that isn't fraud. There may be othher claims, but that aint one of them.
There are no valid RICO claims against Quiznoose.
Bring claims you don't have is called ignorance of the law - not uphill battle--
Richard Solomon, FranchiseRemedies.com, has over 45 years experience with franchise litigation and crisis management. He is a graduate of The Citadel and The University of Michigan Law School
Richard Solomon, FranchiseRemedies.com, has over 45 years experience with franchise litigation and crisis management. He is a graduate of The Citadel and The University of Michigan Law School
This posting has an authentic ring accuracy.
The law and Courts do NOT reflect what a layperson's opinion of fairness or good faith. They never have. They never will.
Legislation is too coarse a filter to differentiate based on morality or ethics.
Looking to the law is not hope; it is false hope.
Les Stewart MBA
Understanding Franchising
Les Stewart MBA FranchiseFool :: WikidFranchise
Let's just hope when they go to court, people on the jury will be on the side of the people. (The court case coming up where Q is being sued for $74,000,000.)
They lost this battle but the war isn't over.
Reading “Just the Facts” and “Nature of Business” I thought that each contained many fine points that I hope someone could take and use to their benefit. My Quiznos experience closely resembles that of “Just the Facts” except I came into this franchise having operated restaurants all my life, and having owned a couple of other franchised concepts.
While I have my own list about what I’d like to see different about Quizno’s, I knew that the most important thing that would influence the success of my business after getting a good location would be what we did inside our four walls, and how we could distinguish ourselves from the competition and even other Quiznos. I’ve many times charged less than Quiznos recommended pricing, and in a some instances more, always after I looked at the unit performance, my competition, and what I thought the action would do for my business. I’ve never had anyone from corporate say anything about my prices no matter which way they were.
I’ve had some instant successes and some that we really had to work hard for a period of time before we starting seeing the results we wanted. I’ve even closed a location when the lease was up and re-located to a better spot, a decision that really paid off. I’ve opened some locations as a first generation zee, and have purchased others from existing franchisees, and sold some of the ones that I had. Even opened one, sold it, bought it back, and now I’m going to sell it again to the person operating it.
My wife commented recently when we were talking about a franchisee that we knew that we had never gotten to the point where we gave up and lost hope. We worked at building our business every day, did our own local store marketing, and tried to keep every customer that we got. The quickest way a business person can build their business is to keep their current customers. I’ve seen so many restaurant operators lose a guest over remaking a sub or something else that might cost us $1.50 to make. I do it gladly, and then sample the “mistake” if possible to other guests.
I don’t feel good about seeing anyone go out of business, even a competitor because I know that one day they stood in their new business hoping for a bright and prosperous future as I have done many times, but not everything works out well. Usually when a business fails there is lots of shared blame. There really are no guarantees in anything.
I believe that our new management team has made many positive changes although they certainly aren’t batting 1.000 . I know that is what we want and expect, but again the reality is that doesn’t happen. I’ve found Greg Brenneman to be engaging, open, very driven, demanding of his team, and responsive. I’ve emailed him a few times and always gotten a pretty quick and thoughtful response either addressing my question/concern or forwarding to someone else asking for follow up with me. Rick Schaden didn’t have an email address that we knew about.
My last comment is that I never hear anyone talking about one of the great advantages in a franchise system, your fellow franchisees, and I don’t mean the ones that are failing and blaming everyone. Find the most successful ones, and find out what they are doing. They’re operating the same system, and if they are making it work find out how. Associate with successful people as much as you can. Nothing is gained by discussing how awful things are. Are those successful owners joining in those conversations at meetings? They’re probably busy thinking about how they are going to take information, ideas, products, etc from that meeting and use them to increase sales, provide better service, etc. I’m glad to talk with anyone in our system who asks, and I’ve almost always found that to be the case in other franchisees as well as I’m always looking for fresh ideas. If there are no successful franchisees at all, then that is a real issue, but I know plenty of successful owners out there in the Quizno’s system, and I count myself among them.
It really is quite irrelevant to me if you think me a shill. I'm not selling anything, rasing capital or running for office. I'm quite busy building my wealth with another very successful, high growth company, in a completely unrelated field.
As I said, I learned a lot along the way and have been able to capitalize on it. I shared my experience only so that some people might realize that the courts are not coming to their rescue and to take the responsibilty for where things go from here. Virtually everyone, Quiznos included, has moved on with their lives and are busy working on the future, and they would be best served to do the same. People can either benefit from my experience and apply it to their own situation, or never learn these basic lessons in life and repeat their failures over and over.
Quiznos was what it was, and is what it is. Nothing said here will change any of that. They continue to sell franchises, open stores and generate billions in annual revenues. These scattered suits are just the cost of growing a brand at the pace in which they grew. The fact is had they not grown as successfully as they did no one would ever have heard of them.
It cost me several hundred thousand dollars and countless hours of sleep to learn these lessons. I offer my observations for free. The definition of wisdom is learning from the experience of others instead of having to experience something for yourself. I wish I had been able to obtain my wisdom the easy, less expensive route. There is a lot of money and success out there for those willing to work hard, take risks, learn and adjust course along the way. There are also numerous safer less rewarding routes for those that prefer a lower risk alternative. As I started out saying in this post, it means nothing to me personally what you do or believe. I've done my part and will continue to do so - Good Luck in all of your endeavors!
I agree wholeheartedly.
So strongly in fact that if you will give me your address, I'll drop you a 41 cent stamp so that you can write your Congressman.
This may amaze you (I was shocked when I found out in 3rd grade)-- the Legislature makes the law, the Judges enforce the law!!
But maybe you are one of the 5 franchisees who wrote your Congressman in support of relationship legislation. If we find the other 4, we'll take Capitol Hill by storm...
like the IFA does each and every year.
Paul Steinberg
Franchisee Attorney, New York City, Ph: 212-529-5400
Paul Steinberg, Franchisee Attorney, New York City, Ph: 212-529-5400
JD, they do put the lie to the "sophisticated businessperson" talk.
Hell, the franchisees on this board are sounding like Jessica Simpson: "ooh, the UFOC is a big book. When I read the big words, it makes my head hurt."
Paul Steinberg
Franchisee Attorney, New York City, Ph: 212-529-5400
Paul Steinberg, Franchisee Attorney, New York City, Ph: 212-529-5400
Paul is wrong. It wasn't an uphill battle - Klein didn't plead the Illinois regulation.
Richard is both right and right. He is right about the anti-trust claims. He is also right that we shouldn't be giving a franchisee lawyer a pass.
You have to plead something that will trump the integration clause. Klein didn't do so -even though the Illinois Franchise Act clearly provides an opportunity to plead the regulation.
Howard Morrill and I had a short discussion about this, in another thread.
Michael Webster PhD LLB
Franchise News
Michael Webster, a franchisee attorney in Toronto, Ontario, publishes a website on business opportunities and franchises called "The BizOp News"
I am still calling "bs" on these posts, until there is any evidence that these stories are more than fairy tales.
I especially liked Bob Frankman's observation that franchise vet used the same language as Jim Amos.
Put up some real documents; otherwise it is bs shill talk.
Michael Webster PhD LLB
Franchise News
Michael Webster, a franchisee attorney in Toronto, Ontario, publishes a website on business opportunities and franchises called "The BizOp News"
I have never believed I was entitled to anything. I have raised 5 children on my own. Never went on welfare and bought a home for my family.
In the world of business I do believe everyone is entitled to the truth. In order to make an educated decision to sign or not to sign. Misrepresentation is called lies. Puffing material facts is called lies. Non-disclosure is called lies. It is called selling by deceit.
At a business meeting 50 people took the highway patrol personality test. Only five people were told they were ethical. I was one of them. The rest only want to make the money. Even if it wasn't good for their client.
That is why in most businesses there are rules or laws to protect people from savvy sales people. Why should it be any different in the world of franchising?
Klein ought to come on to BMM and explain his overall strategy. Because most of his decisions so far stink: except for the initial pay-offs that Quiznos thought would get rid of him.
The caselaw has been entirely predictable - and will continue to be so unless he changes legal direction.
Michael Webster PhD LLB
Franchise News
Michael Webster, a franchisee attorney in Toronto, Ontario, publishes a website on business opportunities and franchises called "The BizOp News"
As Solomon never fails to point out, Kodak was an anomaly which in any event is circumvented by re-definition of "relevant market"; as such, claims based on antitrust will fail, however artfully pled to disguise their antitrust premise.
However, Webster brings us back to why the hidden nature of these kickbacks is a deceptive practice. There can be a lot of money at stake: in the Queen City Pizza case the franchisor (Domino's Pizza) got $450,000,000 per year, which constituted "a significant part" of franchisor profits.
This is an area in which the IFA and Webster agree: there should be full pre-sale disclosure to enable the prospect to make an informed business decision. Therefore, I know that the IFA will be filing an amicus brief in the Quizno's appeal.
Seriously, the "volume purchasing" pitch to franchisees who are then charged above-market prices has been controversial since Photovest v. Fotomat (commenced in 1974).
Print photography has gone the way of the quill pen, but this franchisor lie continues, and now we have a federal judge celebrating this deceptive practice and telling the franchisees that this was disclosed.
All without a trace of irony.
At very least, the representation of "volume purchasing" should bear on the legal analysis. But I'm not sure whether Klein presented the argument along the Webster-style line of reasoning.
Paul Steinberg
Franchisee Attorney, New York City, Ph: 212-529-5400
Paul Steinberg, Franchisee Attorney, New York City, Ph: 212-529-5400
As the facts were reported locally, there is evidence to suggest that Quizno's did act in bad faith viz site selection in New Jersey.
The zees had 12 months to open, and needed zor approval of the location. Rather like Goldilocks, nothing was ever "just right." The store was too big/too small too this/too that... and soon the zee was getting a termination letter.
Then Quiznos turned around and found a new zee to pay $25K and start the process all over again.
If I were a franchisor or a zor-side lobbyist, I would not be defending these guys. The Schadens give franchising a bad name, and the sooner they are gone the better for reputable franchisors.
Paul Steinberg
Franchisee Attorney, New York City, Ph: 212-529-5400
Paul Steinberg, Franchisee Attorney, New York City, Ph: 212-529-5400
I love to hear stories of successful people. I really hope things will change for Q. And many people will be successful.
There is a dark side to the story. So many people hurt. I am happy you are not one of them. I hope you continue to have great success. Maybe the more successful stories things will turn.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No Do, really baby, I mean it...I love ya baby. I think of you night and day, you are the only woman for me baby. It's you I want to be with you baby, those other women, they don't mean anything. It's just a man has needs baby....if you loved me you'd...
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Remember what I told you Do...they tell you want they think what you want to hear in order to get what they want...not a bit of difference.
FuwaFuwaUsagi
FuwaFuwaUsagi
"Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers."
I try to ignore Carman. I thought that one or two useful points were made sometime ago. But the continued postings are simply rants.
You on the other hand appear to be someone who is interested in a dialogue.
Michael Webster PhD LLB
Franchise News
Michael Webster, a franchisee attorney in Toronto, Ontario, publishes a website on business opportunities and franchises called "The BizOp News"
"These scattered suits are just the cost of growing a brand at the pace in which they grew. The fact is had they not grown as successfully as they did no one would ever have heard of them." - Guest
Those are not the thoughts of any franchisee whom I know.
In fact, this quote comes straight out of Jim Amos' MBE playbook of problem franchisors. That is - you have to break a few eggs to make an omlet. The goal is to grow quickly in order to establish a strong brand. In so doing a franchisor will naturally or actually may need to burn through quite a few franchisees as they learn what not to do.
NOT!!
Does anyone see a flaw or two with the Amos strategy above?to ask you this guestion for some time. Remember I am a burnt zee. I have asked many of the zees in our franchises this guestion. Did your zor explain what due diligence was to its fullest in the franchise world?. Did the zor tell you to go see a franchise lawyer? Ours did not do this. I believe there has to be good zors out there. There is good and bad in everything.
Good zors insist they do due diligence. Good zors have nothing to hide. Good zors want you to succeed.
are changed. NO ONE should ever under ANY circumstances sign a franchise agreement.
Doesn't mean the war isn't over! How productive will franchising be when zees feel they at war with their zors?
stupid to believe there are no successful franchises out there. Unfortunately I have no aquaintances that have been in the franchise world. I realize to get ahead you have to take risk. I do know many people who are wealthy and never had their own business or purchased a franchise. I just believe franchising is too risky with out knowlege to protect your self from the bad zors out there.
If you are successful I am happy for you.
I have to ask, do you believe there are malicous zors out there that hurt people?
You mean those big words such as "I am not relying upon any oral representations"?
The trend to using simple questionnaires by franchisors to bolster their M&I clauses is even more embarrassing for the franchisee - how can you seriously claim that you didn't understand the questionnaire?
Michael Webster PhD LLB
Franchise News
Michael Webster, a franchisee attorney in Toronto, Ontario, publishes a website on business opportunities and franchises called "The BizOp News"
I know it must be hard to accept but you are wrong on all accounts in my case. The only time we buy anything outside our normal distributor is whee we run short on something and it is usually at Wal-Mart, which isn't saving me any money, but does allow me to serve my guests rather than tellingthem we are out of crackers or forks.
It is my practice to follow established guidelines on holding times, prep methods, etc and use day dots to make sure this happens. There is always going to be some waste. We discard product when we should, and never have a soup issue other than at night. The new portions on soup along with the reduction in required offerings to 2 from 4, have made this fairly easy to minimize waste, and we sell a lot of soup. We even suggest soup with the combos although it is a higher food cost, as it is a competetive advantage (we have very good soups) and the more we sell the better it is! We have made arrangements sometimes to share slower moving dressings with other stores to make sure we didn't go past expiration dates.
My locations exceed the Quizno's required hours opening earlier every day, and closing later on Sunday. I have remote view CCTV in the stores so the closing team knows they can be observed at any time.
I run a spreadsheet every week that takes the food cost numbers that Quiznos provides for each sandwich, multiplies by my product mix, and adds up the numbers which I compare against what we actually spent. That is something I came up with so I could measure our individual performance each week. I wish that Quiznos had done it for me, but it was well worth the effort and I see the benefits.
I can't change what they put on TV, I can only attempt to control what we do in my stores and how we implement the system. For the record I love the Sammies as one of the real problems I thought we had was we didn't have any smaller portions or lower priced items which reduced our customer base. I've seen lots of new customers.
All of us have to find a way to be successful in our own markets. That is what I'd like to encourage. There are some instances where that may not, or has not happened. There probably are many reasons for that.
And I may be wrong, but Burger King has enjoyed considerable momentum the last few years, but I believe that their current string of increased year over year sales began when GB was there. I did notice recently that this is the first year in the past six that the number of openings will exceed the closings. Thes franchisees have to be excited that there has been some consistent direction over the past few years. It seemed like for the longest time that they changed senior management every 12-18 months.
Had you been around in the early years of Quiznos and invested your life saving before anyone ever heard or cared about them you might see this differently. I owned and operated numerous stores and saw their sales increase every year because of the growth and recognition of the brand along with my personal marketing efforts. We had a lot of very strong regional competition and all of them were trying to beat us to the punch to become the top upscale sandwich chain in the country. Back then no one would have ever bet on Quiznos to win that game.
It was the blood, sweat and dedication of people like me that made it so. We all new that fast growth was the key to our survival. I can tell you that Rick Schaden was very invloved on a daily basis and he did everything he could do to help owners win on a daily basis. In the end he created a huge company, albeit one that has some fatal flaws that must be corrected. Franchisees not making money had very little to do with the fast growth or canibalism. It was and still is directly related to the additional costs incurred in purchasing food, paper and equipment. If the individual stores had been set up to make money from day one than we could have built as many as we wanted as fast as we wanted and never run into the problems Quiznos faces today. If they fix the basic economic model owners will make money and all will quickly be well. They will be able to build a lot more stores and really compete with the gig guys in terms of national advertising, purchasing etc.. If they don't than their best days will be behind them.
Do me a favor, stop blaming everything on rapid growth. Strong concepts with sound business models can grow exponentially and never have a problem. There are too many very successful brands in existence today that grew very rapidly to dispute that fact. Rapid growth does indeed exacerbate flaws in the basic economic model if they were not addressed early on. Such was the case with Quiznos.
By the way.
I put up the money, I took the risk, I put in the years of hard work and did very well in the end. I know what it's like to be way under water and running to the bank twice a day after every meal period to deposit the money to make payroll or buy food. I know what it's like to be so far under water that you think of driving off the road on the way home after a very long day because you are worth more to your family dead than alive. I also know what it's like to never quit, never give up and work harder than most people ever dreamed of. I never once had time back then to visit blogs to listen to people complain. Even if i had none of them could have helped me, I had to do it for myself. Now I have the time and the experience to share. I have met and continue to meet many people like myself that made it the hard way.
Funny thing is I have never met anyone that made it the easy way. I wonder why that is?
I expect that my clients will read their paperwork. I expect that if they don't understand it they won't sign it. When I get clients who don't want to make that effort, I drop them. Seriously, no kidding.
I don't buy your "I'm an old lady who trusts in the kindness of strangers" defense. Working in an area with a huge number of people speaking English as a second or even third language, I have clients who make it their business to understand their own contracts.
Umm... actually, it is their business.
I've got a client who can explain real estate lease clauses to you in Arabic and French, and another client who explained "fiduciary duty" to his family investors-- in Pashtun. (True story).
DD, does it bother you that zee-side advocates here on BMM have a higher regard for your intellect than you have for your own?
In any event, unless you move to California, you'd best get a guardian appointed asap or stay out of any endeavor requiring you to invest any money. Like it or not, the courts will assume a certain level of competence and literacy on the part of anyone entering into a contract, even one of adhesion.
Paul Steinberg
Franchisee Attorney, New York City, Ph: 212-529-5400
Paul Steinberg, Franchisee Attorney, New York City, Ph: 212-529-5400
Yes, its called "information overload" and we discussed it in our article. To avoid the application of equity to overcome plain (albeit buried in a War & Peace-size tome) language, zors have taken to using the questionaires which Mr. Webster is referring to.
And as Webster points out, its hard to argue with the questionaire.
Paul Steinberg
Franchisee Attorney, New York City, Ph: 212-529-5400
Paul Steinberg, Franchisee Attorney, New York City, Ph: 212-529-5400
Guest writes: "If it were easy to plead something that trumps the Integration Clause, I'm sure all of the franchisee attorneys would share this with the BAR, or the BAR would be aware of this if there was case law out there."
Uh, no. You just have to put in your complaint. Klein didn't. Should have. Would have made a difference. I have only been saying this for 2 years.
Michael Webster PhD LLB
Franchise News
Michael Webster, a franchisee attorney in Toronto, Ontario, publishes a website on business opportunities and franchises called "The BizOp News"
Guest writes: "I feel that I am entitled to honest disclosure of the risk factor, as demonstrated by the disclosure of the success or failure of other first-owners of the franchise I am buying."
This becomes just stupid, after awhile.
If you are the 4th or 5th generation franchisee, why do you care about the number of poor shmucks before you who failed?
You don't.
You care about the future risks.
I know that it is too much to ask for you to give up this idea, but could you try to make some sense when you post? Is that asking too much?
Michael Webster PhD LLB
Franchise News
Michael Webster, a franchisee attorney in Toronto, Ontario, publishes a website on business opportunities and franchises called "The BizOp News"
It was written:
Since my government told me
My reply:
If you are U.S. citizen then you should have read the words, the warnings, and admonitions of our Founding Fathers and understood that your government is a tyrannical beast that exists to steal liberty and under no circumstances are you to ever trust in any Government institution. This nation was founded on the precept that all men are imperfect and that all men in an arena of public trust will ultimately succumb to lust and are not to be trusted. Translation "Since my government told me" is got to be about the grossest example of ignorance yet uttered. With those words you spat on the legacy bequeathed to future generations by the great sacrifice of our Founders. Drive this through your head, Government can never be trusted. Your Government is the enemy. Government is an evil, liberty destroying entity that sucks freedom from all those it encounters. Every time you embrace the demon known as Government it leaves you weaker. Every time you trust in your Government you have subjugated your better judgment, you become weaker as a person, and ultimately your common sense surrenders in its lusty embrace. Cripes...you can trust Michael Jackson in a pup tent of cub scouts more than you can ever trust any form of Government. The only excuse for such ignorance is that your parents relied on the Government indoctrination center known as public school for what you believe passed for an education.
Cripes, try reality.
FuwaFuwaUsagi
Three relevant quotes by Thomas Jefferson:
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
"...a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
FuwaFuwaUsagi
"Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers."
As I understand the issue, most Quizno's franchisees are not upset that the zor is making money off of the zee. Rather, it is that this particular zor is alleged to have built a business model which makes it exceedingly difficult if not impossible for the zee to make money.
Further, they are alleged to have acted to cause forefeitures of franchise fees by unreasonably withholding consent for sites selected by zees.
Moreover, they are alleged to force purchases from a supplier under common ownership with the franchisor; those purchases made at supra-competitive prices and mandated purchases including unnecessary items like the infamous hazmat suit for cleaning up inside Quiznos--I think the only ones who "cleaned up" were the Schadens.
I have spoken with a number of Quiznos owners. They tend to be reasonably intelligent and hard-working folks, some with track records of success at other restaurants. I don't think this is simply a matter of a few malcontents or lazy franchisees.
Paul Steinberg
Franchisee Attorney, New York City, Ph: 212-529-5400
Paul Steinberg, Franchisee Attorney, New York City, Ph: 212-529-5400
companies flourishing that are good to their people. Not doing things right will only come back and bite you in the a__.
Look at Costco. Their good with their employees and they have flourished with a good reputation. I hear nothing but good things about Costco.
If zors were good and sincere about their zees being successful instead of the opposite. Many people are more likely to buy a zee. And you will see more happy zees posting on BMM and all over the internet.
What are your food costs?
Michael Webster PhD LLB
Franchise News
Michael Webster, a franchisee attorney in Toronto, Ontario, publishes a website on business opportunities and franchises called "The BizOp News"
Franchise Vet writes: "I run a spreadsheet every week that takes the food cost numbers that Quiznos provides for each sandwich, multiplies by my product mix, and adds up the numbers which I compare against what we actually spent."
Why don't you post the spreadsheet?
Michael Webster PhD LLB
Franchise News
Michael Webster, a franchisee attorney in Toronto, Ontario, publishes a website on business opportunities and franchises called "The BizOp News"
Howard, this is a much simpler case. Use the Ill Reg to introduce parole evidence about oral misrepresentations inconsistent with the disclosure. No fraud, just misrep - which would ordinarlly be inadmissible per the integration clause.
Michael Webster PhD LLB
Franchise News
Michael Webster, a franchisee attorney in Toronto, Ontario, publishes a website on business opportunities and franchises called "The BizOp News"
you do not understand the concept of allowing the first generation zee to go out of business. The first generation zee pays for the build out and all the equipment in the business. They have more over head than the second generation zee. When the first generation zee goes out of business the area director or another zee takes over. The first generation zee is still paying for the build out and the equipment. The zor gets another franchise fee and the new zee has the business the first generation zee has build.. Do they have a better chance of making it? It is a no brainer.
It is turning and churning for the benefit of the zor. They could care less if the first generation zee goes out or is having to go bankrupt. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out. Future risk for the second generation zee is less because he doesn't have the extra expense of the build out or the equipment. (No offense Michael, I just tell as it is.) When you study the Q model you see it happens over and over. They take advantage and take the money of the first generation to make future generation of zees successful.
More to the point...
Go out and procure the 4 volume set compiled by Max Farrand's entitled:
The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787. Published in 1911
Then procure the entire set of Federalist papers and the anti-federalists papers and start reading, start contemplating. It will take you about 18 months to digest the information, but you will never again utter the words "Since my government told me" and you will have finally fulfilled the purpose of public education so long denied you by the Government run indoctrination centers.
Education is the cure for ignorance. I have shown you the path, now tread down the path of enlightenment on the shoulders of the giants who bequeathed such an enduring legacy to this nation. You now, no longer have any excuse.
FuwaFuwaUsagi
"Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers."
FuwaFuwaUsagi
"Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers."
Richard Solomon, FranchiseRemedies.com, has over 45 years experience with franchise litigation and crisis management. He is a graduate of The Citadel and The University of Michigan Law School
Morrill & Webster have a point on which I am in agreement. However, one of the elements of a claim for fraud is reliance. This critical distinction was discussed previously by Robert Tingler of the Illinois AG's office, who pointed out that if there is no reliance there is no fraud and therefore no basis for using a fraud claim to defeat the integration clause.
I would note that Tingler was not taking a position on whether this should be changed, but merely pointing out that this is the current state of the law and anyone signing a contract should be aware of the distinction between an M&I clause and a "no reliance" clause.
Farnsworth remains for me an effective cure for insomnia, but I think Tingler is correct.
Paul Steinberg
Franchisee Attorney, New York City, Ph: 212-529-5400
Paul Steinberg, Franchisee Attorney, New York City, Ph: 212-529-5400
As a former sandwich QSR franchisee, I see a lot of merit in FranchiseVet's operational suggestions. A bit of a long post, but worth reading.
Paul Steinberg
Franchisee Attorney, New York City, Ph: 212-529-5400
Paul Steinberg, Franchisee Attorney, New York City, Ph: 212-529-5400
I've actually been so surprised at this line of questioning that I'm trying to figure out if I'm really understanding the question.
This isn't as hard as the line of questioning suggests. Frankly, I just responded as I did to try and figure out whether I am actually understanding the question.
Anti-federalism arguments aside, the persistent push to somehow shift the burden of protecting oneself to another reeks of irresponsibility and laziness. Yes, the government has provided mandated disclosure requirements, but it is up to the zee prospect to filter and decipher whether these disclosures accurately depict the worth of the system to you. The argument for increased regulation inevitably has its basis in the belief that people are too stupid to either know how to protect themselves by themselves or too stupid to realize that they need to find people that are specifically educated in vetting franchise systems because they do not possess the skill set to vet it adequately themselves. It is essentially a grossly insulting position that you would require me to provide more in the way of taxes basically because of stupidity.
I am in agreement that franchising has serious flaws, this site has pointed out many. But I cannot fathom why this translates into a burden that should be shifted to the government. Wal-mart and Home Depot had a better response to Katrina than FEMA, yet you posit that somehow the government is the solution to what ails you.
Fuwa is absolutely correct. Education is exactly the solution, and is the only viable one. You appear to be the type that believes: "The Patriot Act - protecting your rights by taking them away." Protecting yourself is, and should be, your responsibility. If you have a zor that breached their contractual obligation to you, grab the most competent zee lawyer you can find (Dady, Zarco, hell even cranky Solomon - they are not hard to find) and go to town on the zor. I honestly hope you win. But your repetitive complaints about conspiracies and Item 20 - the government is not, and should never be, your babysitter. If you could not understand the ramifications of what was disclosed then that is unfortunately your fault. If you did not realize that you did not understand the ramifications of what is disclosed, it is also unfortunately your fault. Accept this and move on.
Guest:
You chose to take the high road on what could have been a contentious debate, for that I thank you.
You wrote:
Those who serve in the Armed Services of this country HAVE to trust their government and like to think that they are sacrificing for the fine ideals of the country, freedom and democracy, and for the guy or gal next to them
My reply:
My understanding, as taught to me is that I am explicitly not required to trust my Government and the is to defend the country against enemies foreign and domestic, and to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, not the Commander-in-Chief's interpretation of the Constitution (I might add that clause reads when called into service for you nit-picky types, a subject of much debate).
Stated differently I find no compulsion to trust the Government for members of the armed forces, in fact just the opposite appears to be true. That you harbor these sentiments is disquieting.
You might recall that International trials conducted at the end of WWII further iterated that a member of the armed services is to blindly follow an allegiance to a Government. You might also recall our Declaration of Independence, an antecedent document tto our current Constitution, makes this point very clear.
The relevant text is provided below for your review.
--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government—
Please note, there is no requirement of blind allegiance, no compact of trust, in fact quite the opposite.
In closing, I hope you will reflect on what I have written, and our Founder's vision for this nation, as a nation ruled by the people, and we the people has a DUTY to shepard our Government and fight against every encroachment on our blessed liberty corrupting nature compels it to advance.
FuwaFuwaUsagi
"Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers."
FuwaFuwaUsagi
"Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers."
Paul;
As I read the Ill Act/Reg there is separate cause of action for the violation of the section.
I don't see that it matters that in the franchise agreement you signed a merger clause versus a no reliance clause.
If you were told X, reasonably relied upon it, and X was false which caused you damages, and X is not consistent with the disclosure, then you have a cause of action - a statutory misrepresentation tort.
You want to plead it this way to defeat any summary judgment motion.
Michael Webster PhD LLB
Franchise News
Michael Webster, a franchisee attorney in Toronto, Ontario, publishes a website on business opportunities and franchises called "The BizOp News"
Howard, I haven't researched this: but is there something equivalent to the Ill Reg in the State of Washington?
I wonder if we should try to put together a spreadsheet of state franchise acts/regs which could be used to trump an integration clause?
Michael Webster PhD LLB
Franchise News
Michael Webster, a franchisee attorney in Toronto, Ontario, publishes a website on business opportunities and franchises called "The BizOp News"
Many proponents of relationship legislation would agree with you. Much of the economic and philosophical basis for relationship legislation is to avoid the shifting of burdens to the government which occurs as a result of negative externalities caused by the franchise model.
This does not mean that franchising per se is bad, any more than the creation of negative externalities by Wal-Mart means that Wal-Mart is bad.
To use your analogy (and I do agree about Wal-Mart's commendable work during Katrina):
Now, don't get me wrong: there is nothing illegal about that and if I were a Wal-Mart exec I would do the same thing. But one of the jobs of a good legislature is to close loopholes that enable people and organizations to shift negative externalities on to the taxpayer.
Paul Steinberg
Franchisee Attorney, New York City, Ph: 212-529-5400
Paul Steinberg, Franchisee Attorney, New York City, Ph: 212-529-5400
Why the UCMJ is relevant to franchising is beyond me. But at least let's get the law correct.
It has been ages since I knew this stuff well, but as I was taught the starting point is Article 92 . The ticklish thing is the presumption that an order is lawful: that's a pretty tough presumption to rebut, absent something truly egregious.
And no, the UCMJ says nothing about trusting or not trusting the Government. Unlike some of our bloviating on BMM, the UCMJ is a rather basic set of laws to enforce discipline and not a philosophical treatise.
Paul Steinberg
Franchisee Attorney, New York City, Ph: 212-529-5400
Paul Steinberg, Franchisee Attorney, New York City, Ph: 212-529-5400
Howard, that is very interesting. Can you provide a link to the case? (I am getting overdrawn on Pacer!)
Michael Webster PhD LLB
Franchise News
Michael Webster, a franchisee attorney in Toronto, Ontario, publishes a website on business opportunities and franchises called "The BizOp News"
Section 226 states: "
As a condition of the sale of a franchise, a franchisor may not require a prospective franchisee to agree to a release, assignment, novation, waiver, or estoppel that would relieve a person from liability under this subtitle.
But I think that the Ill Reg is much stronger.Michael Webster PhD LLB
Franchise News
Michael Webster, a franchisee attorney in Toronto, Ontario, publishes a website on business opportunities and franchises called "The BizOp News"
M.W.: I was speaking in general terms and I did not make that clear. I would agree that:
But where there is no statute:
Now, I am violating my own anti-bloviating guidelines here insofar as I am winging it without digging a bit. But even at my advanced stage of senility, I believe that I'm on solid ground, at least with regard to my home state case law.
Paul Steinberg
Franchisee Attorney, New York City, Ph: 212-529-5400
Paul Steinberg, Franchisee Attorney, New York City, Ph: 212-529-5400
To get both sides of the story you have to hear from many people.
While we have great lawyers on here and they give great advice. We need people who tell their stories and ask many guestions.
BMM will grow if more people can speak peacefully about their stories.
Guest we do not even have a name from you yet. You won't tell us your story. You expect us to take advice from you yet you will not tell us who you are. There is no doubt you are knowlegable and know the world of franchising. Yet we really need you to verify if you are a zee or zor. Remember in franchising the word is verify, verify and verify.
If you have nothing to hide then tell us who you are. You love to bash zees and former zees yet I still do not understand why you haven't registered. For all we know you may be a Q area director or work for corporate. Is that hard to understand?
CCH Bus. Fran Guide ¶8736
Shoot me an email Michael and I'll email it to you.
hmorrill@gth-law.com
Who you are? You sound very intelligent. Maybe if you were there for us you could of advised us. Yet most of the clubs are rapidly going out of business. If you are so smart why don't you open your own business. You seem to know what your are talking about.
I am not wallowing in self pity. I admit the first 2 months I was not myself. I am fighting to restore myself. You have to admit sometimes hard times will make you stronger. I already told God I am strong enough.
You seem to know my whole story. I haven't told everyone my whole story. I believe I have had many sucesses in my life and failures. You wouldn't be human if you experience nothing but all good.
Not having been the most attentive or brightest bulb in my class, I'm going to pass this over to Webster & Solomon to hash out. And the proper answers may vary depending on state law. But a few quick thoughts on your 4 Q:
- "Always"? No. But most of the big zors have decent contracts, and follow the letter of the law.
- Not only the Pope, but even if Amos were to get his buddy Jesus to stop in at the trial the evidence would not come in. Of course, judges are not fools and even if evidence is ruled to be inadmissible after an evidentiary hearing, one can't unring a bell.
- There are really good reasons why the parties have the ability to draft a contract barring introduction of parol evidence, but that's another story.
- Also, in an arbitration even where an M&I clause does exist the arbitrator is not bound by substantive or procedural law--this is why those BMMers who gripe about ADR don't realize that in some (admittedly, rare ) cases an aggreived zee may do better at arbitration.
- Your Q doesn't follow from your premise and in any event the Q is confusing. Suffice it to say that a claim for fraud must make out the elements of fraud, and generally reliance is one of those elements.
- As to the issue of making a representation knowing that the M&I clause will vitiate said representation: we discussed the FTCs discomfort with this in our article, and as Webster and others have pointed out, this will now be in itself a deceptive practice.
As to your final discussion, it is conclusory and I disagree with much of what you say. As to case law, you can find volumes (literally, e.g., the CCH Business Franchise Guide) of case law out there. Whether case law is in your favor is another matter.Paul Steinberg
Franchisee Attorney, New York City, Ph: 212-529-5400
Paul Steinberg, Franchisee Attorney, New York City, Ph: 212-529-5400
they've lost all hope in turning their unit(s) around. Maybe because their investment is already considered destroyed and they're living a life of quiet desperation until they bite the bullet, close their store, and move on.
just a thought.
that FranWads do rely on extraneous information and then sit there and sign a document in which they say that they didn't.
Now that's really disgusting! --
Richard Solomon, FranchiseRemedies.com, has over 45 years experience with franchise litigation and crisis management. He is a graduate of The Citadel and The University of Michigan Law School
Richard Solomon, FranchiseRemedies.com, has over 45 years experience with franchise litigation and crisis management. He is a graduate of The Citadel and The University of Michigan Law School
situation to understand. Many are working many hours with no pay and building the brand for an out fit that many know is so bad. Once you loose the trust of your franchisor it leaves no hope at all. When you read of real issues of Q like I did. (Since our zee was assoicated with Q, same people) you get disgusted with the fact they have hurt so many people. Yet will not acknowlege or really help them in anyway. You know you are fighting a loosing battle because your either running out of money to support yourself let alone a business that is in desperation. Most zees will hang in too long because now they have no money to pay for their living expenses. They know this is the worst investment they have ever made.
They look back on the many years they had worked hard to get where they were before they bought a crappy franchise. To see they may or will loose all the fruits of their labor. To end up loosing everything. Does the zor care? No! Yet they may offer you money for your business on pennies on the dollar. Then you think, "I wish I never heard of Q." They have ruined my life with false promises and between the business and the Landlord, "I have lost everything."
It is even more pathetic that a person would not read a document because it is too "difficult".
Michael Webster PhD LLB
Franchise News
Michael Webster, a franchisee attorney in Toronto, Ontario, publishes a website on business opportunities and franchises called "The BizOp News"
Post new comment