Wisconsin Court Reverses Quiznos Judgment, Franchisees Claims Granted
MILWAUKEE (Blue MauMau) – Federal Judge William Griesbach of the U.S. Eastern District Court of Wisconsin announced yesterday that he has granted the franchisees' motion to amend, and that the previous judgment entered on November 5, 2007, be vacated. The lawsuit was filed under Westerfield, et al. v. The Quiznos Franchise Company LLC, et al. The judge stated, "Plaintiff's civil RICO and fraud claims are reinstated, but since plaintiff's have not challenged the dismissal of their anti-trust claims, that part of the court's original decision and order remains in effect."
Judge Griesbach previously ruled dismissing the franchisees' claims without prejudice to allow them to pursue their allegations in state court. Based on their latest motion, he reviews three separate arguments that they claimed warranted reconsideration of his decision. The first claim showed that they acquired new evidence from another case which demonstrated that for at least three years Quiznos had a written corporate policy instructing its field reps that there was only one answer, "None", in the Acknowledgment form they were required to sign in becoming a franchisee. The question was whether they had received any information outside the disclosures contained in the UFOC disclosure information. Franchisees stated with new evidence they were instructed to write "none" even though they had relied on outside information.
The second claim was that the court misapplied clear Wisconsin law in resolving issues as to whether the Franchise Agreement was unconscionable. And third, was that the franchisees argued that their claim of RICO charges were not based on Quiznos' failure to disclose the fact that it was entitled to receive payments from the suppliers of goods and services they were required to purchase, or the amount they would receive. The franchisees argued that the fraud consisted of Quiznos' statement: "we and our affiliates negotiate purchase agreements with suppliers for the benefit of Franchisees." They argued that they falsely promised to negotiate for their benefit when it really used the agreements to extract exorbitant payments from them to the detriment of the franchisees.
Judge Griesbach also granted the franchisees motion to file an amended complaint, and stated that Quiznos shall file their responses within twenty days. Franchisees' motion for oral argument was denied.
Justin Klein, Marks & Klein, attorney for the franchisee plaintiffs said, "We are obviously very pleased with the decision. It is a rare occasion when a federal judge grants reconsideration. We look forward to presenting evidence to the Judge and proving our claims."
But on the other side, Rich Emmett, Chief Legal Officer of Quiznos, issued this statement, "We have tremendous respect for Judge Griesbach and his desire to be thorough in his review. This is not a decision on the merits. We remain confident, just as in Canada, when the Court views the facts in addition to the pleadings, it will conclude that Quiznos acted appropriately and that the claims brought against us lack any merit."
--
Related reading:
- Quiznos Operators File Class Action in Wisconsin State Court
- Judge Dismisses Federal Lawsuit against Quiznos
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| Judge Griesbach's Decision Granting Mot to Amd or Alter Judg (LAG0474).PDF | 1.08 MB |
- Franchise topic:

Guest writes; "I believe justice will prevail!", and Do writes; "and many thousands out there" didn't get a damn good lawyer or they didn't have a case or they are still waiting for Santa.
In this action there is a determination but for most every one else ... hey guys/gals .. if you want some justice .. you have to dig in/dig deep and go after it. If you are in franchising siht you either fight or walk ... and neither is cheap. Know what you are up against - read BMM.
The more things change; the more they stay the same.
--
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
The more things change; the more they stay the same.
--
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
One out of 156,000,000 or 0.00000065%
The industry certainly reaps what it cynically sows by ignoring all independently verifiable quality measurements such as ISO9001. Les Stewart MBAUnderstanding Franchising
Les Stewart MBA FranchiseFool :: WikidFranchise
--
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
Understanding Franchising
Les Stewart MBA FranchiseFool :: WikidFranchise
and cheap etc. Cannot disagree in most cases.
Richard said; "There is no longer an excuse for being a franchise fraud vicitim. If you get taken today, it is your fault." Cannot disagree in most cases.
Then there are the cases where a sound franchise gets sold or a new senior exec decides to make his mark [as a dog would against a defenceless tree].
But let's face it - how much media coverage of rogue franchising is there to prompt people. People are gullible and they know that there are good franchises - many make the mistake of thinking their soon to be disaster would fit the "good" category because it wasn't in the media and most shonky systems don't find there way to the web and a salesman told lies.
We live in this franchising world and most of those looking for the structure that franchising is supposed to deliver are first time business people. Mostly gullible! Richard, do you remember your first time? Like franchising; without some experience it was probably over before you knew it.
The shonks are too effective and the victims can't fight back becasue once they are screwed their state of mind precludes it or because they have been screwed financially. If it were different then the web, and BMM, would be inundated.
Those at BMM all live in a world where using computers is as certain as making coffee in the morning. Some don't drink coffee and some people don't use computers and some people are stupid or gullible or arrogant and most are cheap. Most in setup are told to be cheap.
They should do their due diligence and they should pay for someone that knows what they are doing and some are lazy and some are stupid. Experience tells us that. But franchising shonks don't target people who are not stupid and lazy and they are good at the con.
Sure they should have done their homework. If they ever noticed something negative at all about franchising they should have. If they had ever been in business before and they got screwed in a franchise because they didn't perform effective due diligence then they are fools.
But the issue isn't the stupid or the lazy; the issue is rogue, bad, scam, shonky, con franchising. Even the stupid and gullible are entitled to effective protection. The lazy pay their dues ... always have .. always will.
The more things change; the more they stay the same.
--
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
of franchising is all sweet and sweet. And not just by franchisors and their representative bodies – in the majority of media referring to franchising and by existing franchisees. There is a popular and promoted image of franchising as the “means to print money”. A prospective franchisee believes he is investing, say $300,000, and has no clue that he is about to put everything on the line. Let me repeat that; has no clue that he is about to put everything on the line.
I agree with almost everything that Richard has to say. He is right “in most cases”. But he is not the only one out there dealing with franchisees deep in this crap where I hear of many an experience where the franchisee could not have done more. I have no time for those that in a variety of ways were their own worst enemy. No really – I just don’t have the bloody time.
We are hearing more and more of franchisees being sucked into the blender without warning when their franchisor became bankrupt. Everything is for sale and sound franchises sell to mad-men to then create waves of horror stories. There are some systems where they had a history of success and then for some unknown reason the franchisor went mad. Was it influenced by outside financial pressures, a sudden lapse into schizophrenia or just plain greed as they saw retirement looming?
There are literally tens of thousands of lawyers out there telling people they are "qualified" but when it comes to franchising there are very few who can interpret the contract against the behaviour of the franchisor against available performance data against risk. If they were asked Richard’s questions they would answer in a smoke and mirrors affirmative. But when it comes down to their approach to appraising an offering it is all too hard and the typical response is; “but that’s franchising”. Due diligence begins with an assessment of their legal and financial advisor – but who tells franchisees that?? Is that where contributory negligence starts?
It is convenient to label all franchisees as lazy and stupid. With great respect; that is an “easy” out. I’m not suggesting that most are not lazy and stupid but if you think BMM target market is limited to those suckers you are wrong. That is a blinkered view and not dissimilar to most lazy franchisees that walk into a disaster.It is 3.00am and I have to travel 4,000 miles today to bash heads with a council for a franchisee so I’ll be off .... can I borrow your cape Richard? Me glib? ... you nasty .... and stop talking to my wife ...
The more things change; the more they stay the same.
--
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
I apologise to anyone who considers my blogs as suggesting they should not do “attack mode” due diligence. That is definitely not my intention – far, far from it. I look at BMM as an educational tool that tries but sadly it doesn’t reach everyone.
I prod here at times to add to the dimension of people’s understanding that everything about franchising requires an open mind to all possibilities. That is often BMM; someone prods and someone kicks and people learn. Look at this thread and tell me that those that have contributed haven’t added or reinforced “The” message; your message Richard, BMM’s message.
The more things change; the more they stay the same.
Not necessarily. I have owned several businesses, including a franchise. And some attorneys own franchises (notably, Mr. Zarco owns a Johnny Rockets). My understanding is that Solomon has some background as a business owner as well. Moreover, law is a business and indeed some law firms have partners who focus exclusively on the business aspects of running the firm and don't actually practice law.
But your point is well taken as a cautionary observation, and Solomon and I have disagreed on this point; I tend to lean more towards your point of view than Solomon's.
The role of the attorney is to give an assessment of certain risks and how to mitigate them. The practice of law is inherently risk averse (even in transactional work involving business purchase) but the nature of business is to accept risk commensurate with potential reward.
I generally do not pass on the economic merits of a particular asset purchase, be it a business or a piece of real property. On those occasions when I do opine on business-related matters, I make it clear that there is a distinction between legal judgment and business judgment.
Again, not always true. The best lawyers I know are much like the best franchisees I know: they have a passion for their work and are doing what they love. I prefer what I do now, but several of my clients are puzzled by why one would prefer to practice law than be a business owner--different strokes for different folks.
One of the biggest mistakes made by franchisees and law students is choosing a career because they believe it to be a path to wealth.
Paul Steinberg
Franchisee Attorney, New York City, Ph: 212-529-5400
Paul Steinberg, Franchisee Attorney, New York City, Ph: 212-529-5400
--
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 may in part be a function of geography. In my neck of the woods, it has become so common to make complaints against attorneys (your own or even your counter-party's) that I was at a CLE last year where the speaker (who was employed by the body which disciplines lawyers in my jurisdiction) bemoaned the huge volume of unfounded complaints filed by disgruntled members of the public; one recent trend I have seen is attorneys filing complaints about their adversaries, something which used to be resolved by going to your judge and having the judge smack the appropriate party upside the head.
As to your law partners' comfort level, I suspect that their lack thereof is more due to a fear that the firm profits will go to support your high-end epicurean standards than any prospective malpractice claims... ;)
Paul Steinberg
Franchisee Attorney, New York City, Ph: 212-529-5400
Paul Steinberg, Franchisee Attorney, New York City, Ph: 212-529-5400
--
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
Guest writes: "If a lawyer somehow developed the ability to spot a great money-making franchise opportunity miles away, they'd be doing it. They like money just as much as the next guy."
I do not read Richard as providing advice about how to spot the best opportunity, only as how to avoid some of the worst traps out there. Traps that look superficially like real franchise systems, but which in fact are frauds.
As I understand Richard's top flight program, it is not a review of the legal documents but rather a long process to prepare you and alert you to red flags at the discovery day, for example. Red lights that you might otherwise drive through.
Michael Webster, a franchisee attorney in Toronto, Ontario, who publishes a website on business opportunities and franchises, called "The BizOp News"
Michael Webster, a franchisee attorney in Toronto, Ontario, publishes a website on business opportunities and franchises called "The BizOp News"
--
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
--
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
Franchisee associations should not just be seen as valuable in dispute, or to minimize disputes; which they are and which they do.
Franchisee associations are enormously powerful and run properly should ensure the health of a franchise system. They give balance and quality franchisors should see them as a positive and not be fearful. Just one example; it is difficult for a franchisor to instigate new initiatives without the support of the network and this often brings about unnecessary expense and disharmony.
When a franchisor can sit down and present objectives to franchisee representatives this is usually a more intelligent forum where pros and cons can be discussed and details involving any conflict can be ironed out. Then the initiative, given it is beneficial to all, can be delivered to the network with support from the association.
There is no downside to a franchisee association that is run properly for anyone within a good system. And yet franchisors generally don’t get it. But some do and the franchising relationship gets stronger.
But franchisees are often like cattle and are hard work to organise and especially when the network has dispute. Franchisees in trouble tend to want to protect their butt and don’t see the value in protecting the network butt. They usually wait for everyone else to get involved and to make the effort on their behalf.
I am a great believer in franchisee associations and there are enough good ones out there producing better franchising and enhancing the value of everyone’s investment. They should exist in every network. But for most it is like flogging a dead horse so I try not to waste too much of my time after the first selfish, stupid question – from a franchisor or a franchisee.
The more things change; the more they stay the same.
And it is a long shot that much will happen with any of the lawsuits.
The Truth Shall Set You Free!
TIF
The Truth Shall Set You Free!
TIF
TiF: when you respond to nonsense postings (and "Guest" ones in particular) it only encourages more such posting.
Just ignore them, and they find more receptive websites on which to rant.
Paul Steinberg
Franchisee Attorney, New York City, Ph: 212-529-5400
Paul Steinberg, Franchisee Attorney, New York City, Ph: 212-529-5400
It's been a week or so since i read this, but Quizno's and the class action lawsuits in WI, IL & CO are going into private mediation in June. I just figured someone else would mention it that had a little more 'inside' information than myself.
You would think that Janet Sparks would have reported on this development?
The Truth Shall Set You Free!
TIF
The Truth Shall Set You Free!
TIF
I have read the various complaints and I missed the part where they could end up going to prison as result of a civil penalty.
The Truth Shall Set You Free!
TIF
The Truth Shall Set You Free!
TIF
DoDil with all DO respect what in the heck do you mean?
No one at QUIZNO'S that I know of is under threat of criminal charges.
The Truth Shall Set You Free!
TIF
The Truth Shall Set You Free!
TIF
Please refrain from opining and speculating on things you know nothing about.
Now I know this advice may cause you to not post at all, but at least try to comply 99% of the time.
The Truth Shall Set You Free!
TIF
The Truth Shall Set You Free!
TIF
If no one gave their opinion or speculations there would be no one for you to put your two cents worth in. Therefore there would be no need for site's like BMM.
That's what makes BMM great. Zee's and former zees can voice their opinion and people like you can bash them. Then the public can see all sides of the franchise world. Then we'll see what the public has to say. The public is important because they are the one who votes to put our Congress, Senators and President in office.
I am sure if everyone in our country read the horror stories of the Quiznos world and other franchises people would be horrified and disgusted. People's opinion is very important.
Lying to franchisees is like lying to your spouse. No one ever goes to jail for it.--
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
You are not helping the Q-zee argument.
Gouging, or rather overcharging, is not stealing nor robbery. As we have seen in the courts, a company's right to "overcharge" is even protected by law.
Can you imagine the chaos of a system where your store's customer could put you in jail because she thought your mark-up was too high?
True, which is the essence of a tying argument. A tying analysis involves two items: the item which you purchase (a franchise) and an item which is "tied" to that purchase (say, roast beef).
Your argument is made in Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services [504 U.S. 451 (1992)]; there are several websites which reprint and discuss this case.
However, the issue is what constitutes a "relevant market" and the courts have shifted to the position that this is determined prior to the overreaching behavior-- that is to say: you have a choice between a few thousand franchisors and so if you choose a Quizno's and then are subject to supra-competitive pricing on your raw materials, that is your fault for choosing Quizno's in the first place.
I think the current tying jurisprudence in franchising is nonsensical, but there you have it.
Several people, Michael Webster included, have made the case that the issue may have more success if framed in terms of inadequate or misleading disclosure. Webster argues that at some point supra-competitive pricing is a de facto increase in the cost of the franchise and since the point of disclosure is to enable an "apples to apples" comparison, that ability is vitiated by the hidden surcharge: All things being equal, where Zor A has a royalty of 4% and Zor B has a royalty of 5%, you would think that Zor A is a better deal. But then a few months after you buy Zor A, the company makes you buy all of your supplies from Cousin Louie's Food Supply. As you might imagine, Cousin Louie charges double the rate that Sysco charges, but now you are stuck.
I am simplifying the Webster line of reasoning, but you see the point and it does make sense. The attractiveness of the Webster argument is that you don't have to debate Kodak and its progeny; you bypass the antitrust issue altogether and base your case on what is conceptually more easily defended ground, insofar as the disclosure regime (which is the only one for most of the country) is being undermined.
Paul Steinberg
Franchisee Attorney, New York City, Ph: 212-529-5400
Paul Steinberg, Franchisee Attorney, New York City, Ph: 212-529-5400
Paul, that is a good synopsis of the argument. In Canada, the tying is actually explicitly allowed for franchise systems. But there is also the right to supply, which is currently becoming a hot topic.
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"
"A guest has the option of frequenting your restaurant, or going to scores of others. A zee has no option BUT to purchase food from the zor."
First, that's not necessarily the case between a restaurant franchisee and franchisor.
In regards to the Quiznos franchise system, your argument above would be much more powerful if Q-zees could show in real life, not hypothetically, that franchisee co-operative buying was prevented by the franchisor so that they could enjoy much higher mark-ups.
In the public relations arena, yes. Not necessarily true in court; look at Judge Pallmeyer's ruling and see what she says about Quiznos charging supra-competitive pricing.
People don't seem to understand that where the zor reserves to itself the absolute right to specify vendors, merely showing that the vendor is engaging in supra-competitive pricing is insufficient to support a claim that the zor must allow the zees to purchase from a cheaper source.
I don't think the law should be that way, but prevailing case law says otherwise.
Paul Steinberg
Franchisee Attorney, New York City, Ph: 212-529-5400
Paul Steinberg, Franchisee Attorney, New York City, Ph: 212-529-5400
Paul writes: "People don't seem to understand that where the zor reserves to itself the absolute right to specify vendors,"
I would disagree with this, the zor can reserve the right to specify certain requirments for the vendors, other than the secret sauce vendor.
Q doesn't release what those requirements are: and the 'ees are not coordinated enought to get competitive supplies and then face the inevitable termination.
Perhaps a notice/good cause state would be a good place to begin forming a buyers group? Do we know any states that fit that bill?
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"
Actually, the Canadian class action against Q had potentially criminal consequences. The allegations were of price fixing which under Canadian Competition Law may have criminal consequences, if charges were laid by the Crown.
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"
The right to gouge via high mark-ups is one thing but price fixing is something different.
Since Teddy Roosevelt, the U.S. has a history of watching out for business competitors that collude to sell the same product or service at the same price. That's a very serious thing with tough consequences.
But didn't the Canadian courts summarily dismiss price fixing allegations against Quiznos?
Darnelle, the Ontairo Court did not certify the class proceeding which in part alleged price fixing.
When a class is not certified, the underlying action is not dismissed.
The decision is also under appeal to Divisional Court.
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"
And who was sent to jail? What were the cases?
The Truth Shall Set You Free!
TIF
The Truth Shall Set You Free!
TIF
Here is a relatively recent Canadian action, which the Competition Bureau brought against Toyota.
So although there was a possibility of criminal proceedings, Toyota paid fine and changed practices.
I am not sure in Canada that there is a lot of appetite for jailing someone for an economic anti-competitive act.
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"
The Ontario case alleged, among other things, that Q was engaged in a violation of section 61 of the Competition Act when it required its authorized suppliers to charge higher prices than they would have but for the supplier's relationship with 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"
Almost all price fixing cases have been about trying to prevent price cutting - - except - - There was one newspaper case (i forget the name of the paper - maybe the St Louis Post Dispatch) in which the claim was that the newspaper publisher was fixing maximum prices, above which you coud not sell the paper - for the purpose of optimizing circulation.
My recollection is that, harkening back to Justice Douglas' statement in the Mid Continent Oil Case that any tampering with any price mechanism violated the Sherman Act, a court held that maximim price fixing was also illegal. I'm on too many pain pills and muscle relaxers right now to be more specific than that and I'm not certain that stood up through the years either.--
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
The Mid Conmtinent case (US v Socony Vacuum) was in 1941, and it was not a resale price maintenance case, but a horizontal conspiracy amongst competitors to stabilize prices for spot market mid continent refined oil products.
The Sherman Act was enacted in 1891. No one has ever gone to jail for vertical resale price fixing - just for conspiracies amongst competing sellers - horizontal conspiracies.
Whenever I have horizontal, rather than vertical, conspiracies, I am usually neked and price is not the issue.--
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
Schwinn and Topco - position is everything in antitrust just as it is in bed--
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
Guest says - "TIF - Resale Price Maintainence is a violation of federal anti trust laws that have been on the books for more than half a century - a known fact even to the uninitiated."
Reply - You prove that you remain uninitiated and ill-informed since Sherman does not apply here.
Guest says - "As to who went to jail, do your own homework on that question ......"
Reply - You can't name any franchisiors that went to jail in a case like Quizno's because you don't know of any."
Guest says - "And may I ask you a simple question - what is your profession and your"
Reply - Maybe you should read all my posts and find out? Or is even the simplest research beyond your capacity?
The Truth Shall Set You Free!
TIF
The Truth Shall Set You Free!
TIF
If you ever tell anyone that I said this, I will deny it...but--
TiF is a pragmatist, and while TiF does enjoy poking the bear on occasion, for the most part I (secretly) agree with much of his position. And even when I don't, I am a fan of puns and double-entendres; sometimes the most telling argument is made with a joke.
Paul Steinberg
Franchisee Attorney, New York City, Ph: 212-529-5400
Paul Steinberg, Franchisee Attorney, New York City, Ph: 212-529-5400
Does he have to bash everyone he thinks has less knowlege than him?
Do Diligence, you wouldn't know good from bad even if bad bit you on your behind.
The Truth Shall Set You Free!
TIF
The Truth Shall Set You Free!
TIF
If you say so it must be so.
The Truth Shall Set You Free!
TIF
The Truth Shall Set You Free!
TIF
It is because of gouging that zees have to charge higher prices. In the Q case even charging higher prices is not helping them. Is something wrong with this picture?
In our personal case the gouging was unbelievable. All of us see it and their stupid enough not to know that zees talk among themselves. It is proof they wanted our money up front and didn't care if we were successful. A good zor would help their zees become successful.
You now have part of an answer. You know that Quiznos isn't right for you. Now what?
Do you still plan to go into business for yourself? If so, what are you thinking of investing in?
Guest writes: "First let me say, I don't like to write on blogs. I normally consider it a waste of my personal time. No offense to Bluemaumau, as it provides a great service."
So it is a waste of our personal time reading past your second line? Ok, by me.
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 is fair and reasonable to ask that the business model be fixed.
The Truth Shall Set You Free!
TIF
The Truth Shall Set You Free!
TIF
going to admit they have used people's money to build their empire. The evidence is in many people's stories.
They are the only one that wins in their company. It doesn't matter people are being made homeless because of their schemes.
What about their victims. Who cares they are making people homeless. Who cares if they suffer. Who cares because it is always the franchisees fault right? I am living it. Although it is not Q it is still the same outfit. Their lies will catch up with them. They will continue to sell out of greed.
Why would you think they would be going to jail? Are there new civil penalties that I am unaware?
The Truth Shall Set You Free!
TIF
The Truth Shall Set You Free!
TIF
Guest writes: "I only changed spec on custom catering to places like school lunch programs etc.. They ordered off of the menu so there really is no spec for that. I opened satelite locations inside of Walmart distribution centers, small junior colleges, sports facilities and stadiums and sold sandwiches along with anything else they would buy. I never received a default notice as all of these sales occurred outside of the store. I paid royalties on all sales and that was always their main concern. I booked one sports camp where I served over $35,000 in sandwiches over a 3 week period every summer. I had numerous car dealerships that wanted bagels, fruit and cheese trays and morning coffee every Saturday. I always figured that a default notice came a very distant second to my cash flow as long as I stuck with the basic concept within my four walls."
But the possible dilution of the trademark was not a concern? Lucky you that nobody took a good look at your off site catering.
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"
Unless I have misunderstood your description of your success, you said that a) you served offsite food not prepared by Q standards, b) advertised or used the Q trademark, but c) reported royalties from the offsite sales as if they were onsite.
Hmm, can anyone else see the violation of the franchise agreement?
BTW, are you flying me out to meet you in person as previously promised?
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"
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"
To answer the various points:
I owned a large number of stores. I dare say far more than any anyone else in this site.
I know the Schadens quite well, as well as all of the other senior management that lead the brand over the years, all the way back to the early 90's.
I was intimately invloved in all aspects of the brands development over the years. I both suffered and benefited, as the case may be through all of the ups and downs over the years.
While I initially lost a lot of money, I stuck with it and made it work in the end.
I have many friends today that are some of the largest multi unit owners of very well established national brands, such as McDonald's and Dominoes. Their experiences were not much different in how they built their businesses from how I built mine.
What I did to make it work:
1. I did all of my own homework. I studied the sites in detail, negotiated the leases down to the dime, knew my numbers backwards and forwards, built the stores with my own contractors, and created whatever materials/programs where needed to build sales. I never took Q's word that something would just work because some employee said it would. I knew it was my money on the line and acted accordingly. Sometimes that didn't win me any friends at Q, but I did it nonetheless.
2. I trained and developed my own people and programs before they ever knew how to do things. I worked in the stores every day, 7 days a week - lunch and dinner for years. I had stores in different states so sometimes that meant driving all night since I couldn't afford to fly or rent a motel room. It meant sleeping on the office floor for months. I went out and sold catering, introduced myself to all of the local businesses and devised cross promotional ideas and events, hung door hangers, stood on street corners and tried every wild idea I could think of. I sold catering events that were larger than some stores monthly revenues just by working at it every day. I sold car dealerships lunches every Saturday by calling all of them every Friday to see if I could deliver lunch to their crew the next day. One of my stores sold 1200 sandwiches a week to the local schools. I put together a sandwich that I could afford to sell them at a cost of $1.00 to sell them at retail for $2.00. I didn't wait for Quiznos to devise a school lunch program, I did it. Some worked and some didn't. Some made money and some didn't. Quiznos couldn't give me the answers I needed so I figured it out, printed up the materials and executed.
3.My managers helped design and execute all of the programs. I treated people well, promoted them, and they stuck with me through the tough times. Did I have major cash flow problems, employee problems, corporate problems and problems in general? Of course. But unlike many others I worked day and night until I figured it out. Many of the things I figured out are still used in Quiznos today.
4. I believed with my heart and sole we would be a successful national brand. No one believed it and I couldn't prove it, but because of my blood, sweat and putting my life savings on the line we made it happen. I had every excue in the book and abunch that people on this site never even thought of. But I plowed through the really hard times, never, ever quit, and built a lot of wealth for my family and I. Because of that I get to stand toe to toe with anyone else, look, them in the eye, and tell them it can be done.
It may not be easy, but no one ever promised me easy. It has paid off in spades despite the tough times we had to endure.
Geez, I have read better rags to riches stories than this.
No store gross figures, no identification, nothing more than "the little engine that could".
Please make me eat my words by publishing any evidence of your story being true. I love it so far, sleeping on floors, training staff with different standards, selling unauthorized product ...
Brilliant marketing.
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"
From my website:
Tel:










416-342-6144
Fax:866-226-1706
Email: michael@bizop.ca
You can skype me, but set up a time first.
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"
Kudos for making it work for you. However, the point i fail to understand is one that is central to my take on franchising: one should fulfill goals/objectives of a franchised business because of (amongst other things including the franchisees own blood/sweat/tears) the franchisor's efforts. In your case (and in the cases of some other zees that have posted with positive experiences), it appears that you succeeded despite the franchisor's efforts. If the franchisor's performance in the life of the franchise agreement with a franchisee is not a source of assistance but rather just another hurdle to overcome when starting one's own business, it seems to me IMHO one would be better off starting out on their own.
I guess one could make a case that a franchisor's brand presence in the marketplace could overcome any shortcomings in their operating model, but i wonder how many franchisors out there are really successful in bringing people into the door of their franchisee storefronts with their brand but have a lousy operating model. Seems to me that if the operating model stunk, the brand itself would suffer.
just my two cents.
Inspiring story. Based on what you've said, one could easily ask (1) what Quiznos did for you to justify whatever money you paid them; and (2) whether you would have been better off to do all this as an indpendent.
Your reaction(s)?
I'm curious.
1. What did they do later to justify their fees that they did not do at first?
2. Why would you have been unable to achieve the same (or higher) level of wealth as an indpendent?
Based on what you've said, here is what I would question about your view:
1. that you needed Quiznos at all, given that you describe having developed any system as much or more than they did; and
2. that the same level of commitment you describe would have yielded you less money in the end.
If you are saying that you wouldn't have tried it at all without the belief that Quiznos was there to help, wouldn't you say that you were somewhat misled into becoming successful?
Heck sign me up. I will ask you in person the same questions I wrote. Might even be more rude.
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"
This is a slanderous falsehood, and Guest should apologize.
As we all know, Quizno's required the purchase of a HazMat suit, and those franchisees who went whining to the Michigan Dept of Health never bothered to consider the alternative use of a HazMat suit as a sleeping bag.
Those bunny suits are cozy, one might even say... mmm, toasty!
Paul Steinberg
Franchisee Attorney, New York City, Ph: 212-529-5400
Paul Steinberg, Franchisee Attorney, New York City, Ph: 212-529-5400
Guest writes: "All of the very negative Quiznos comments I read ignore the fact that this company achieved what very, very few brands accomplish. They have become a household name and generate billions in annual revnues, all accomplished in a very short period of time."
I think that this is a fair observation. No matter what you think of the franchise agreement - and it stinks- Q has a brand reputation among consumers. Even if you think that they accomplished this using franchisee capital, it is still an tremendous accomplishment.
Guest also writes: "I never depended on the franchisor to provide me with success. I always did whatever it took to make things work, regardless of the conditions. I could have blamed the franchisor for their incompetence and false promises, but that did very little to solve my problem. Along the way I learned and awful lot about what it takes to be successful, and it continues to be valuable to me and my family today."
Could we have some, even general, examples of what you learned to do as a franchisee?
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"
On page 11, Judge Griesbach gives the Wisconsin legal standard for "puffery."
In many cases the definition is a close call, but I don't think that saying you will negotiate "for the benefit of" another party is puffery. If Quizno's said "we have the best purchasing department" or even (a closer call) "we'll get you the best prices" one might argue puffery.
Stating that I am working "for the benefit of" Jane Doe is not puffery. Indeed, it suggests assumption of a duty of loyalty or even a fiduciary duty to Jane Doe.
As to comparisons with other sandwich QSRs, the discussants miss the point. While that might be helpful evidence, it is not dispositive. My guess is that discovery will turn up evidence that the franchisor was not in the least bit concerned with the franchisees, but quite concerned with getting kickbacks. The irony is that with this Judge (and Pallmeyer as well), if the franchisor had just kept in the language about getting kickbacks and discarded the "for the benefit of" language, the zor would have been free to plunder to its heart's content.
Paul Steinberg
Franchisee Attorney, New York City, Ph: 212-529-5400
Paul Steinberg, Franchisee Attorney, New York City, Ph: 212-529-5400
Post new comment