Home | MyMauMau: Log In / Register | Ask Franny
Log In / Register | Mar 12, 2010

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:

AttachmentSize
Judge Griesbach's Decision Granting Mot to Amd or Alter Judg (LAG0474).PDF1.08 MB
5
Your rating: None Average: 5 (2 votes)
  • Franchise topic:

246 Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Quiznos by Guest
Good, it is about time that a judge reconsiders, and hears the truth. Quiznos are closing all over the country, not because the product is bad, not because they are run wrong, but because of the schemes, and the practices of the corporate leaders. Their arrogance, and their irresponsibilities to their franchisees are abusive, and it looks like it and will be finally catching up with them, I hope their civil suits and "internal mitigation" is and will catch up with them, it is always funny when a scheme becomes present, people become beware, it is also funny when it comes to the attention of regulators, then it becomes a felony. I love the FTC, and attorney generals, they are slow, but they'll catch on, ding dong the toasted subs will be gone. And those greedy pricks will go to jail.
"Wisconsin Court Reverses Quiznos Judgment"..Any Updates? by Guest
"Wisconsin Court Reverses Quiznos Judgment, Franchisees Claims Granted" Does anyone know when this case is going to be heard? I'm a current Quiznos Franchise owner and all of the allegations are nothing but true! We are being dragged through the mud by Quiznos. We are days away from shutting down our store and filing bankruptcy. My husband in restaurant management for 20 plus years, I'm experienced in sales, marketing, banking and finance for 30 plus years. The perfect formula for owning a Quiznos. WRONG!!!. We have been sucked dry by Quiznos. We have lost our entire life savings. Our perfect credit is no longer perfect. This experience with Quiznos will haunt us for the rest of our lives. I believe justice will prevail! !
Why not contact the attorneys? by Guest
If you are interested in the case, contact the attorneys representing the franchisees directly. I think it is Marks and Klein out of NJ.
Your story is the same as ours by Barbara Jorgensen
Barbara Jorgensen's picture
and many thousands out there.
Justice will prevail? by Ray Borradale
Ray Borradale's picture

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.

Ray it is hard to find excellent lawyers by Barbara Jorgensen
Barbara Jorgensen's picture
Do you think they grow Solomon on every tree? Wish we could clone him and all the lawyers on BMM.
People should know that their lawyers can bring Webster, by RichardSolomon
RichardSolomon's picture
Steinberg andf me in as consultants, to work with them; help them with analysis and tactics; negotiating points; dealing with priorities and probabilities; and any other of a number of important issues. We don't have to be licensed everywhere to be able to assist local attorneys.

--

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
Do; you obviously haven't seen their photos? by Ray Borradale
Ray Borradale's picture
You are right; it is extremely difficult for the everage lay-person to research who is really capable to represent you in franchising ... unless of course you ask the questions suggested by Richard.

The more things change; the more they stay the same.

You are in the poo by Barbara Jorgensen
Barbara Jorgensen's picture
If you don't discover BMM before franchising.
Lawsuit Updates by Guest
Not sure of an actual court date yet but we are in the trenches in the discovery phase. Very interesting information has been found in discovery and as much as I would love to 'spill the beans', at this point I can't. To say you have been 'sucked dry by Quiznos' is an accurate use of words.
Re: Lawsuit Updates by Guest
Thanks! I just can't wait for the outcome. I strongly believe in KARMA... Justice WILL PREVAIL! Q is doomed.
I wish the best to all the Q zees by Barbara Jorgensen
Barbara Jorgensen's picture
Remember I was a part of a franchise that many Q has beens started. Same business practices. How can they sleep at night? Many people hurt financially, emotionally and who knows how many divorces. Not to mention suicides. Very sad.
I hope it is soon by Guest
I hope we go to court soon. I had to file bankruptcy AND I still get to py the $250,000.00 loan I took out to set up my Quiznos and Try to keep it running for 8 months. We opened and went straight to the poor house! In my area ther have been 4 stores close since July. I am wondering if anyone knows just how many stores have closed in that last 6 months? If our area is any indication stores must be closing right and left!!
Quiznos Closure Rate by Guest
In my area the closure rate is hovering around the 20%+ rate. It is very difficult to keep track of the actual rate since some stores have been churned and end up closing for the second and third time. I do not understand why people will continue to buy these. I was able to close without filing bankruptcy, however I will be paying my remaining debt down for the next 15 years.
Why do people keep buying failed concepts? by Guest
Here's why: http://www.bizop.ca/blog2/due-diligence/the-10-most-surprising-element.html Pay special attention to "cognitive dissonance" Cheers
People are buying bozo franchises because they are lazy. by RichardSolomon
RichardSolomon's picture
ignorant and cheap. They are also arrogant in that they think they are smart emough to spot the thieves selling bankruptcy traps disguised as franchises. There is so much important educational information about how to avoid those traps that is now on the Internet FOR FREE. that only really ignorant, lazy and cheap people end up getting fleeced. There is no longer an excuse for being a franchise fraud vicitim. If you get taken today, it is your fault.

--

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
No Richard by Barbara Jorgensen
Barbara Jorgensen's picture
I disagree. If I had known about BMM and read all your blogs before signing, the outcome would be different. I know I would of done the smart thing and call you for due diligence services. When we signed our agreement it was May of 2006. The problem is everyone needs to get the word out about BMM so people will know about the lawyers on BMM who know how to vett a franchise and tear apart a FDD. I assure you I have never been lazy in my life. People have to have something going for them to be able to buy a franchise. Anyone reading here on BMM should pay for killer due diligence service. Easier to pay $3600 than go through bankruptcy and loose all you worked for. Doing business with a bad zor can destroy you. The key is get the best advice from professionals or kick ass lawyers like Solomon that will stop you before you go into a one sided relationship and get hurt. Richard I never heard of BMM until Nov. 2007. Almost a year after Bob Baber's suicide. I was reading on BMM in the second week of Nov. 2007. We were in business then. After we closed I couldn't get off of BMM because of all the knowledge about franchising. I read every blog and got to know many of the cast by their writing. The bad zors hate BMM and the good zors love it. Hopefully the bad zors will change their ways. They will have to if they want to stay in business. Look what's happening with Quiznos. A good name is more valuble than gold. Quiznos in the franchising world does not have a good name and anything associated with Quiznos.
Did my research by Guest
When we were considering Quiznos, I did my research! I googled Quiznos, all I got that Quiznos was rate the #2 franchise in the US! Found nothing else! Soon after, when we realized we were fraudulently suckered into this Q scam, stuff about Q started coming out.
156 million blogs & websites by Les Stewart
Les Stewart's picture
Richard, You are absolutely correct that there are many fine, no-BS websites among these zeros and ones, with yours being one of the finest.
    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 MBA
Understanding Franchising

Les Stewart MBA FranchiseFool :: WikidFranchise

I understand your point, Les - that there are so many that it by RichardSolomon
RichardSolomon's picture
can be confusing. On the other hand, if you have upwards of a half million dollars to invest, you have to have some smarts or you will get skinned. You have to know how to go online and Google up such things as Franchise Investment Due Diligence; Frachise Fraud. If you're too dumb to narrow the search by using such obvious search words, either you shouldn't be thinking of investing in a franchise at all, or you ought to go out and get some Boudreaux's Butt Paste for when they stick it to you hard - you know where. I posted a blog article here this morning that hasn't yet made it to prime time, but - against Belinda's wishes - I decided to give a free peek at how franchise investment risk really ought to be thought about.

--

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
Past the Tipping Point? by Les Stewart
Les Stewart's picture
Richard, I agree with you when it comes to those who are potential franchisees. At this time in point. My experience is that the smart money has long since decided to stay on the sidelines. They believe all franchise waters are too dangerous. What is that old sales chestnut: one person knows 250 people? Percentage of exiting franchisees per year, number of years, etc. Those numbers add up especially how memorable the experience of losing your life savings tends to be. Top marks to the industry for consistency: there's a sucker born [imported?] every minute. Oddly enough, there are limits to everything Main street is way ahead of the punditry on this and credibility once lost is often never redeemable. Like a lot of things: Little things add up very slowly but then they reach a point where, literally and figuratively, all hell breaks loose. Les Stewart MBA
Understanding Franchising

Les Stewart MBA FranchiseFool :: WikidFranchise

Re: Because they are lazy by Ray Borradale
Ray Borradale's picture

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.

NO! The issue is stupid and lazy and cheap. by RichardSolomon
RichardSolomon's picture
There is a level of activity in which you cannot excuse incompetence with the "it's my first time" foolishness. You don't risk everything you own blindly because it's the first time you risked everything you own. That is stupidity and laziness. When you lose everything you own, there is often no second time. The rest of your life is spent trying to rebuild your resources and trying to overcome the emotional consequences of losing everything when you clearly didn't have to lose it. Even your wife loses respect for you when you blow the whole family asset pool - don't expect any Po Baby sex for a long time - expect to have to go out and buy sex when you can find some money to do so. Your life becomes a living hell, and your family may very well not even hold together from the economic tragedy. I know this from the experience of people who came around too late - who put themselves through it when it wasn't necessary because they thought that having some lawyer "read the documents" for a few quid would suffice as due diligence. You are far to glib. It is no one's fault but yours if you get fleeced. If you are too ignorant to get the resources needed, fewer and fewer courts will even hear your case. If you now and in the future sign documents in which you confess that what caused your downfall never happened, the fact that you are an adult who has access to competent help WILL mmore and more be held against you. You won't any longer be allowed to blame others for being crooked when you could have protected yourself and didn't. The law of every commercial nation recognizes your own participation in your downfall as contrbutory negligence. You don't have your dentist do your brain surgery, and you don't risk everything in franchising when you could have purchased competent due diligence but chose not to do so. You have to be current in using the availavble resources for self protection. The Babe in the woods defense to stupidity won't work any longer. The legal system isn't there to protect you against yourself. You have to protect you against your own inexperience if competent resources are there for that purpose. If you didn't choose to do so for reasons of laziness, stupidity or stinginess, so be it! The BlueMauMau crying towel will become your only recourse. You can still come in here and whine. All you have to do is go on to any search engine using the search words "franchise lawyer". Then you call every one on the first two pages of results and ask two questions. They are: (1) Do you focus on franchise pre investment due diligence? and (2) Do you vet the financial and business risks as well as the legal risks? Do't hire anyone who does not answer YES to thoose two questions. It's that bloody easy! Get real!

--

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 image promoted by Ray Borradale
Ray Borradale's picture

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.

If I thought only losers were on BMM I wouldn't bother. by RichardSolomon
RichardSolomon's picture
I view this blog forum as a potential bully pulpit for preaching the gospel of really attack mode due diligence. Some will "get it" and many won't. No one can prevent downstream calamity that is not specifically permitted in the documents. Any system can go under from any of a number of causes. Even the best business has business risks. I was on the GM law staff in the early 60s when we thought GM was God's own automobile company. But ultimate universal industry wide calamity isn't what I am talking about. I'm talking about evaluating the risk profiles that can be evaluated before you sign a franchise agreement. The best franchisee candidate can turn out not to be able to handle the challenge, or to be able to handle it but then not be able to handle the success. That also isn't what I am talking about. I know something of your history from your postings in here, and I won't go into that. But your experience does not have to be the experience of others. Neither should you - in my opinion - discourage others from availing themselves of resources that might not have been around when you were making your own investment decision.

--

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
Not at all where I am coming from by Ray Borradale
Ray Borradale's picture

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.

No easy way out by Guest
Solomon writes, "Do you focus on franchise pre investment due diligence? and (2) Do you vet the financial and business risks as well as the legal risks?" So many people are looking for money nowadays, even attorneys. You say to call a franchise attorney that can vet financial and business risk, eh? That makes as much sense as calling my dentist to file my tax returns. Frankly, attorneys wouldn't recognize a good business opportunity if it hit them in the face. Their expertise is in the legal world, working in a practice or as an employee to a law firm. Attorneys are helpful during the due diligence phase in explain legal documents and the ramifications of its clauses. They can also look up legal cases that may not be listed in a franchise system's FDD. Franchise due diligence is not bloody easy. 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.
Legal v. bsns judgment by Paul Steinberg
Paul Steinberg's picture

Guest writes: Frankly, attorneys wouldn't recognize a good business opportunity if it hit them in the face. Their expertise is in the legal world, working in a practice or as an employee to a law firm.

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. 

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.

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
So true by RichardSolomon
RichardSolomon's picture
While I do give business and financial advice when vetting franchise opportunities, I recognize the risks, but I do it anyway. The reason I do it anyway is that I believe I have developed a very astute capability of spotting business risks peculiar to franchise opportunities - there are those, you know. If I have that ability and I take a small fee and don't provide a client with what I am able to provide, then I'm wasting my abilities. Moreover, I have this belief that if I did sell a client short on what I am able to provide - even tho the client didn't want to pay extra for it - the client would claim that, as part of my fiduciary duty to him, I should have provided it anyway. I think that a disiciplinary committee/jury might agree with that. The rationale would be that if you hold yourself out as an expert, you have to really be an expert. Theoretically you can draft your way around that in a retainer agreement, but retainer agreements have a bad habit of being ignored in disputes between lawyers and clients. Since I represent clients from everywhere, I have to consider that I may be at risk everywhere. (I know, Paul - I shouldn't be saying this - for my own good). Therefore, I am significantly more expensive than a lawyer who only vets legal risks. I insist upon beng compensated for the added dimension of what I provide. This has served me well over many years - no bar complaints - except one for being too rough on someone and one for taking a case against the interests of a former client - I won that one. I was too rough on the first SOB, so I took a slap on the wrist and prayed for grace next time.) But no one has ever complained about the quality of my service, and I wear that as a matter of pride - a badge of quality. Paul would certainly never get a comfortable night's sleep if we were partners, but we are different people in that respect. I will stick my neck farther out for the appropriate fee. He has better sense.

--

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
Bar complaints by Paul Steinberg
Paul Steinberg's picture

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
My God, Paul! How much money do you really need? by RichardSolomon
RichardSolomon's picture
After you pay your bills, what are you going to do with the rest of the money? Save it? For what? My daughter is now out and successfully on her own. She doesn't need me to leave her anything. My girl friend is far wealthier than I am. She doesn't need me to leave her anythng. I intend to work to the last breath - I love it that much. I owe very little. I have excellent medical insurance. With that profile I would be a bloody fool not to live well and enjoy everything - well almost everything - to excess.

--

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
Business vs. Legal advice by Howard R. Morrill
Most clients ask what you would do if you were faced with the same decisions they are faced with. Then they ask why you answered as you did. It seems to me you almost necessarily end up talking economics at some point. In addition, the Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC 2.1 in WA) require that the lawyer offer candid advice and provide: "In rendering advice, a lawyer may refer not only to law but to other considerations such as moral, economic, social and political factors, that may be relevant to the client's situation."
Due Diligence by Attorneys by michael webster
michael webster's picture

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"


The important point for me is that my clients don't get by RichardSolomon
RichardSolomon's picture
ripped off. If that isn't worth anything to you, that's your opinion and I take it for what it's worth. Anyone who fails to see the value in what I do is welcome to go elsewhere. I'm not in a popularity contest. I sell extremely cynical analysis of franchise opportunities. Pie in the sky afficionados are not in my client profile.

--

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
Legal vs Biz advice by Guest
RIchard is correct--he is telling you up front what he does. The problems that I have encountered as a recovering attorney (now business owner) were people who had their minds made up and really did not want good advice. They wanted you to tell them what they wanted to hear: that this was a great opportunity and they were "protected." Well, every single franchise agreement that iever read says exactly the opposite. It SAYS in plain English that you are on your own and that you are NOT protected and can be competed against by the franchisor and other franchisees. Some folks just do not want to hear this or approach the franchisor for a change n the deal. It is irrational behavior. Sure, maybe if you buy a McDOnald's franchise it doesn't matter that the franchise agreement says that because the franchisor really does help out and does not routinely enforce the letter of the contract at every opportunity or try to steal your business investment. There are chains that do litigate the crap out of their franchisees and investigate them and file complaints with government agencies to see if they can turn up the heat on theoir own franchisees so they can pry their investments out of their hands. Of course, that effort is worth t onky after the franchisee DOES succeed. You can even show the client these cases and news articles but they still want to continue. I guess that's how these Zors pay their litigation and private investigator bills.
There are answers to these issues. Here are a few. by RichardSolomon
RichardSolomon's picture
Franchisees could take my advice and early on set up an independent franchisee association and have it porofessionally managed so that it does not become simply a whining room. Issues become refined and professionally dealt with so that the association acquires credibility. Franchisees tell every new franchisee how critically important it is to belong to the group - you want as close to 100 % membership as you can get. When the franchisees are a coherent and properly lead group, they can get things accomplished in spite of contract language - just by the weight of their mass. No franchisor wants to take on the whole group on important issues. If the Assn isn't started early and properly managed, it doesn't achieve that kind of credibility. Franchisees don't do that. They wait until the shaft has been forcefully inserted - you know where - and then they start to whine and beg and write nasty emails and disparage the franchisor, and do other things that are counterproductive. Will they ever learn that the cost of a good organization is part of the cost of survival? I'm starting to doubt it. You think this is nonsense? You are welcome to any opinion you like. But before you get engaged, I suggest you go to www.FranchiseeAssociationManagement.com and read up on the subject.

--

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
Flogging a dead horse by Ray Borradale
Ray Borradale's picture

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.

Franchisee Associations by Guest
Anyone who wants to see the pros and cons of such asscoiations at work need only look at the various twists and turns that the Subway franchisees have taken with their NAASF. Sometimes everyone is working together, and at other times against each other. And the IPC, Subway co-op, would never have succeeded without the support from franchisees. It took a while for the franchisor to see the light and the result is an enormous boon for Subway franchisees for over 12 years mrfranchiseman.com, your Subway specialist
IMDA by Guest
Midas franchisees had a brilliant association but then along came Fedlman and ushered his puppets into position. I don't know where it is now. GR - Ex-Midas
"Wisconsin Court Reverses Quiznos Judgment, Franchisees Claims G by Guest
I too am a franchisee of Quiznos and I'm wondering if there is a lawsuit in California that I can join???
Quiznos Lawsuit by Guest
Contact the TSFA at www.toastedsubs.info they will steer you in the right direction. There is a national complaint you can join.
No one at Quizno's going to jail... by Truth in Franchising

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

Ignore stupid posts by Paul Steinberg
Paul Steinberg's picture

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
Is this important? by jd

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. 

ANOTHER Quiznos Lawsuit - and Other News by Guest
A lawsuit has now been filed against Quiznos in Pennsylvania. Yes (p)Rick, Tricky Dick, Brennenman, and the rest of you modern day cattle thieves the noose is slowly tightening and your day of reckoning is fast approaching. In other Quiznos news, Q recently went through another layoff at the corporate HQ and there's speculation that the Quiznos "brain trust" is looking at bankruptcy. The facade of Quiznos working with franchisees is over. The Q goons are telling franchisees to follow the $5 giveaway and increase hours...or else. Meanwhile, hundreds of franchisees have been sucked dry and Q is bracing for a wave of closings over the next few months. For those of you thinking of buying a Quiznos franchise...this system is withering on the vine. Save your money and your health - find another way to invest your hardearned money. A cd and a job at Walmart will leave you way ahead of a Q investment.
Re: Is this important? by Guest
I have not heard about that ...... If Q's management is smart, and I believe the current management is, they will settle in mediation. If they end up in court, and their business practises get exposed in front of a judge & jury, they will fry ........ !!!
Re: Is this important? by Truth in Franchising

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

What crime did Q management commit? by Guest
Nothing has been proven yet but if you read the complaint, it should spell it out for you.
Re: What crime did Q management commit? by Truth in Franchising

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

You know as well as I do by Barbara Jorgensen
Barbara Jorgensen's picture
Civil cases can end up in criminal cases. If any criminal actions can be proven.
Re:You know as well as I do by Truth in Franchising

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

Hey TIF by Guest
...... why don't you start a new topic, so we have an equal opportunity to nitpick you ...... ? That's all I have seen you do ...... !
Not yet by Barbara Jorgensen
Barbara Jorgensen's picture
Time will tell. There has been corporate people sent to jail for fraud. Your smart enough to know this. I for one cannot say anything about Q. Yet I was involved with one of their schemes. The lawyers would have to answer this question. If fraud was commited and the evidence is there, have to face jail time?
Re: Not yet by Truth in Franchising

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

TIF by Barbara Jorgensen
Barbara Jorgensen's picture

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.

Hey, Do... by RichardSolomon
RichardSolomon's picture

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
Gouging is stealing, robbery by Barbara Jorgensen
Barbara Jorgensen's picture
That has been the writing of many of the Schaden's zee's complaints. Don't you agree? I would love to see your comment about this!
Gouging Is Not Stealing Nor Robbery by Darnelle White
Darnelle White's picture

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?

Re: Gouging Is Not Stealing Nor Robbery by Guest
DW wrote: "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?" 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. So, your argument holds no water ...... Peace!
Tying by Paul Steinberg
Paul Steinberg's picture

Guest writes: A zee has no option BUT to purchase food from the zor.

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
Tying in Canada by michael webster
michael webster's picture

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"


Argument Has Beef, Not Water by Darnelle White
Darnelle White's picture

"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.

No right to cheaper vendors by Paul Steinberg
Paul Steinberg's picture

Darnelle White wrote: 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
Competitive Suppliers by michael webster
michael webster's picture

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"


Re: Argument Has Beef, Not Water by Guest
DW wrote: "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." The letter of Quiznos FA reads you can alternate source food items if they are like kind and made to Quizno's specification. In practise, no one has been able to get a copy of Quiznos's food specifications, in order to get a competitive bid on like kind items. I am sure this Catch-22 will show up in discovery as the scores of litigations against this company slowly move forward in the court system. When that happens, I will come back and ask you: "Where's the beef ?" The TSFA has a high caliber team of attorneys working on all of this, despite comments here to the contrary. As for the others that throw cold water on real life owners struggling in a rigged business plan, all I have to say is - you have to be there; if you were, you would arrive to the same exact conclusions.
How in the world can by Barbara Jorgensen
Barbara Jorgensen's picture
people show on the interenet what they are experiencing in real life. Our stories are real. If you personally want to infesticate people's stories than go for it. There is no way to show you. Our comments on an open forum is our opinions and sometimes life experiences. If you do not believe the stories than you would have to somehow get hold of the people telling their stories. People are here writing because they want to warn people of the unethical franchisors that hurt people.
Q Price Fixing by michael webster
michael webster's picture

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"


Q Price Fixing Not Sticking by Darnelle White
Darnelle White's picture

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?

Canadian Courts on Q by michael webster
michael webster's picture

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"


Re: Q Price Fixing by Guest
I have personally forwarded evidence of Q's price fixing practises here in the US to the FTC. This evidence is in written form, as in emails back & forth with a few clueless folks at Denver HQ, some of whom were in the legal department. I am not an attorney, but having worked in sales in the corporate world for many years, was well coached on what is legal and what is not ..... Without revealing too much here, I was sent a display with pre-printed prices on it. When I called and requested a unpriced display, so I could set my own prices, I was told in writing they would not do that, and I HAD to honor the pre-printed prices. Before you get ahaed of me and say it may have been a limited time promotion, so I had to comply with it per the FA, it was not. It was an ongoing offering, which is still ongoing as of today. Can anyone shout "RESALE PRICE MAINTAINENCE !" And yes TIF, folks have been sent to jail for that practise .........
Re: Re: Q Price Fixing by Truth in Franchising

And who was sent to jail? What were the cases? 

The Truth Shall Set You Free!

TIF

The Truth Shall Set You Free!

TIF

Re: Re: Re: Q Price Fixing by Guest
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. Perhaps the esteemed lawyers here can reconfirm that fact and offer expert opinion for everyone's benefit. As to who went to jail, do your own homework on that question ...... And may I ask you a simple question - what is your profession and your motivation for being here ...... ?
Canadian Price Maintenance - Competition Bureau by michael webster
michael webster's picture

Here is a relatively recent Canadian action, which the Competition Bureau brought against Toyota.

"The Bureau's inquiry addressed allegations of price maintenance, namely that Toyota was prohibiting dealers under the Access Toyota Program from selling vehicles below "Access/Drive-Away Prices." The inquiry also raised an issue under the misleading representation provisions of the Competition Act because the Access Toyota Web site indicated that Access Toyota dealers could sell for less than Access/Drive-Away Prices without being penalized by Toyota.

Under the price maintenance provisions of the Competition Act, it is a criminal offence to attempt to influence upward or discourage the reduction of resale price by threat, promise, agreement or other like means or to refuse to supply or otherwise discriminate against a person because of their low pricing policy. Under the Act's misleading representations provisions, it is also a criminal offence to knowingly or recklessly make a representation to the public that is false or misleading in promoting a product or service."

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"


Q Price Fixing? by Guest
I would think that most price fixing cases such as the Toyota case described by Michael Webster were in response to trying to maintain higher prices. My guess, since most Q franchisees post about corporate interfering with their ability to make a profit is that when poster asked for blank POP materials he wanted to use it for higher prices, not lower. There are many mysteries of the law(s)to me, but making it harder for someone to post higher prices doesn't seem hurt competition in the marketplace. In fact it might help their competition.
Q Canadian Resale Claim by michael webster
michael webster's picture

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"


Good point by RichardSolomon
RichardSolomon's picture

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
Oh, and, by the way... by RichardSolomon
RichardSolomon's picture

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
price fixing by Guest
Richard; How does this apply to the UPS Stores franchisees?
Compare... by RichardSolomon
RichardSolomon's picture

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
Re:Re: Re: Re: Q Price Fixing by Truth in Franchising

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

The TIF Troll is Back by Guest
Reply - "Maybe you should read all my posts and find out? Or is even the simplest research beyond your capacity?" Ah, the mini-troll must have been evicted from under his bridge again. Here he is with his garbage once more. I made you disappear for a refreshing, restful interlude after the last lambasting I gave you for your troll-like behavior, but I guess you decided to crawl out from under your rock...er, I mean bridge, again. Must I remind you that I'm still here and if you continue your troll-like postings, that I will make you tuck your troll-tail between your legs and slink off as previously? Wise-up before you have to disappear again. No one likes a bullying, obnoxious, rude little-man troll. And don't come to a gunfight armed with a twig and a sofa pillow as before. You'll lose again.
TIF is pratical in his comments... by Guest
You are ever so brave in your name calling and attacking of TIF. You have nothing to offer from what I can read whereas TIF seems to have knowledge and wit. Maybe its that you don't like what he has to say? In fact you are acting like the TROLL, not TIF. Bernie
Bernie is correct by Paul Steinberg
Paul Steinberg's picture

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
Tif does have knowledge by Barbara Jorgensen
Barbara Jorgensen's picture

Does he have to bash everyone he thinks has less knowlege than him?

TIF by Barbara Jorgensen
Barbara Jorgensen's picture
Guest is so funny. What did you do now TIF? What arrogant slam did you say for someone to write such a post. TIF this is not good.
Tif is a by Barbara Jorgensen
Barbara Jorgensen's picture
zor.
Tif you have by Barbara Jorgensen
Barbara Jorgensen's picture
you have nothing to worry about. Your a good zor right?
Re:Tif you have: by Truth in Franchising

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

Okay Tif by Barbara Jorgensen
Barbara Jorgensen's picture
I can tell you the difference between bad and good. You are bad and I am good. Is that good enough?
Re: Okay Tif by Truth in Franchising

If you say so it must be so. 

The Truth Shall Set You Free!

TIF

The Truth Shall Set You Free!

TIF

Tif by Barbara Jorgensen
Barbara Jorgensen's picture
that was really a bad comment. I have learned and I no longer view everyone as good. You love being on the bad side, don't you? Or at least try to give the appearance of being bad.
Yes Dranelle by Barbara Jorgensen
Barbara Jorgensen's picture

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.

Q squrews franchisees again by Guest
Quiznos will take it to Subway with its own big promo shortly. $5 large subs, additional coupons and discounts on other subs. It's time to go after Subway and grab back market share blah, blah, blah. Once again the franchisee get squrewed. Customers pay less for a quality product while the price paid by us to Quiznos for the food, paper, ect necessary to make these lower cost sandwiches WON'T GO DOWN ONE PENNY. 40-45% food cost, 3% paper, increased labor and at the end of the day, NO PROFIT for us. This is a perfect example of how Quiznos does business. They take our advertising money to come up with a campaign that has franchisees spending MORE money to make LESS while Q rakes in millions of additional dollars. This is why we need food and ad co-ops and a real say in how this system operates. To stop this legalized stealing by the Q scum.
Thanks everyone! by Guest
I was really close to buying one or two Quiznos franchises here in NE Ohio but after reading these comments over the past month or so...this idea of mine is now TOTALLY OUT OF THE QUESTION! Thanks for all your input, I'm staying as far away from Quiznos as possible.
Re: Thanks everyone! by Guest
Guest - hope you used the info here and everwhere to reach your decision not to buy into a Quiznos. It is one thing to read stuff posted by "Guest" posters, but another to do your own due diligence first hand. Believe me when I say, I would use my real name and store number & location, were it was not for the extremely one sided FA I signed in good faith with the Q. They can construe anything anyone says as "harming the brand", and they have proven that on many an occasion. The 68 items of litigation in their March 28th UFOC/FDD bears testimony to that fact and their actions.
Smart Decision To NOT Buy A Quiznos by Guest
Great Decision. As one of the posters on this stream I hope that I in some small way helped in your decision. The posts on this site and many others aren't the rantings of a few malcontents. They're descriptions of how we live, what we endure, and how we are treated by the Q scum. No one pays a premium for anything expecting to be ripped off, and to add insult to injury, be told by the sanctimonious elites that it's our fault for being so stupid and be told by the Qscum that it's our fault for not being able to operate in a system that promotes franchisee failure. All I asked for was a fair deal from the Q scum. What I received is a franchise in a legalized ponzi scheme - and more than likely, financial ruin.
Bigger Picture by Bob Frankman
Bob Frankman's picture

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?

Change Specs by Guest
Guest, Micheal is correct, we have an agreement that states we cannot purchase or sell items not approved by Quiznos. Default notices have been sent out for these items. Perhaps corporate wouldn't act on those defaults, but since the zees livelyhood was at stake why should they take the risk? I truely believe if Quiznos really wanted to fix the messes they created, they could have reached out years ago. There have been many signs to warn them of the issues over the years but they kept plowing forward. (I'm not saying all messes are Quiznos.) I am glad to see you are big enough to admit they had issues. How they deal with these issues will show just how serious they are to fix them.
Guest Apologist by Guest
Guest "Squrew The Q Apologists" Just so you know, I am NOT apologizing to Q. I am apologizing to the poster here. Since I have no proof as to whether or not he is a corporate employee and my questions here were not meant to have him insulted. I, like you, am a large backer of the TSFA lawsuit. I was hoping to pick the brain of a Q supporter, nothing more. The "cash cow" comment however spoke volumes to me.
Squrew The Q Apologists by Guest
More of the same from the Q apologists. It's the franchisee's fault he/she is going broke because they spend a few minutes on this site. Yes, the same franchisee who is working 12-16 hour days, 7 days a week. And he/she is still going broke because of the cost of doing business as a Quiznos. True, we lie in the bed we make, but this bed is a bed of nails thanks to Quiznos. Outrageous buildout costs, outrageous food costs, encroachment, predatory coupons, working the vendors for kickbacks that they make up by overcharging me. Then add that 12% off the top to remain a part of this crummy system. That's why I'm going broke. I paid a premium to own a Quiznos. I didn't pay it to have my life savings stolen from me and I won't take it lying down. I tell everyone I know what Quiznos is about. I use this and other sites to get the word out. I support the TSFA lawsuit. I don't forgive and I don't forget.
TSFA, Chris Bray and the meaning of Life. by Guest
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. Second, to the person who disparaged Chirs Bray and the TSFA, "you know not of what you speak". My philosophy that there is "no shortage of ignorance in this world", is continually proven true. For Mr. Solomon, you simply don't understand, you likely never will. You lack the details and information that we possess. If you possessed this, your thinking would be more lucid. The TSAF and I approached you yyeasr ago. I saw little value in your offerings, both then and now. That sums you up completely. As for Q franchisees who claim success... great for you. There are many variables that can lead to success or failure. Some controllable, and many that are not. No one ever said ALL Q franchisees were failures. But there is great concern for the portion and circumstances behind those that are. Unsuccessful Q franchisees have been labeled in the past as victims of their own doing. I propose that there is a much bigger, yet untold side to that story. All that said, I would say this to every franchisee and pundit on this blog. Let the chips fall where they may. Let the court systems unravel the mystery of the Q, if that is the destiny. Do not be afraid to challenge things that you may believe to be inherently wrong. Do not cower behind those who would defend your rights. Stand up for what you believe. A better time has never existed. Regardless of what professional pundits (without a purpose in life) may pontificate about, recognize the difference between spin and fact. And finally, fear not for Chris Bray, or what you imagine he endured. Chris Bray says he is doing just fine.
Guest on Q by michael webster
michael webster's picture

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"


Quiznos Complainer by Guest
Somehow, some of the more self-professed elite on this board label the Quiznos complainers "losers", "non-motivated whiners", "have to blame someone else other than themselves for their troubles", etc. for their current predicament. I have been a successful multi-unit operator for many years. My only problem now is that I'm not making as much money as I used to make. Has nothing to do with me but with my franchisor. My sales are above Quiznos averages and I run excellent operations. I only expect less in the price I pay for food, more simplification of our menu, and more bang for the buck for our advertising fund. The freakin business model is broke. I only ask that it be fixed. Is that too much?
Re: Quiznos Complainer by Guest
Guest wrote: "My sales are above Quiznos averages and I run excellent operations. I only expect less in the price I pay for food, more simplification of our menu, and more bang for the buck for our advertising fund. The freakin business model is broke. I only ask that it be fixed. Is that too much?" If the average sales Q store cannot make a profit after paying the working owner $13/hr, then the system is broken. When the above average sales Q store, cannot make a reasonable ROI, then the system is severely broken. You know it, I know it, the struggling Q owners not on here know it, as do the folks in Denver. Soon the judges will explain that fact to Q's management, and then the whole world will know it ............ ! The new management team at Q has had 16 months to address the problems - and all they have done is put rouge on this pig's cheeks - it already had lipstick on it's lips, compliments of the prior regime.
Re: Quiznos Complainer by Truth in Franchising

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

When is Quiznos ever by Barbara Jorgensen
Barbara Jorgensen's picture

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.

Guest Comments by Guest
Guest, First, my apologies for the other guests remarks. When I asked the questions you graciously answered, I didn't expect others to tear you down. That certainly isn't my intention. I believe a good conversation looks at both sides of the issues. I do have to agree with the other guest, Quiznos has changed dramatically since the 90's. It almost appears like the SS era (President Steve Shaffer's term) where things really went down hill. The average cost of items went through the roof. Sandwiches with a food cost of 40%+ were being developed, and let’s not go down the Haz-Mat suit road again. The same pail they said we needed to have at $40+ was about $15 at a local supply store. But my point is when a bunch of zees were told (in writing form Q) that food costs cannot go above 27% to maintain profitability, and suddenly they change their menu and food costs sore above 30%+ mark. You can see why there would be cries. The other item in question is the changing of spec item to make it work in your store. Anybody who tried that got an instant default letter (after three defaults they could shut you down). So you CANNOT make any changes to their 'already proven system' without harsh repercussions. They proved that to a few operators. One last item, in the 00's they also experienced numerous encroachment issues. These issues were not around in the 90's. It seemed that when a store was doing well, they would put another down the road which took half your hard earned sales away. Sleeping on the floor cannot correct that? So again, sorry for the others slander. P.S. What makes you think all disgruntled posters here work at a Q-store? I am just wondering why you are defending Q as emotionally as the other side is not?
Some suggestions by Guest
Thanks for your reply. I know Steve Shaffer quite well, what happened and why during his tenure. I can only tell you that he was not in power to control pricing, that was and is a completely seperate entity that reports directly to the board of directors. 1. Pricing, not much you can do about the cost of goods sold, and I agree that the mark ups were ridiculous. 2. Default for changing spec. 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. In my 14 yeaars I never saw them close a store except for health issues or gross misconduct. 3. Q was certainly not the business experience I planned when I bought my first store. On the other hand they were not intentionlly evil. The money they raised from up charging for product is largely where their growth capital came from in the early years. Once they brought in capital partners they were married to that cash flow commitment as part of their financial obligations. While I may not have liked this fact, it was not something that was ever going to change, so I decided to work around it. My perspective is that this goes on to one degree or another in the vast majority of businesses today. I was able to get on with my business plans and quickly opened 9 stores. I owned some of those stores for 14 years before I sold off the last one. I made money in most cases, but it was never a great business model. 4. I never saw canibaliztion as the big problem. The problem was not enough sales to cover the cost of doing business. I found enough business out there all over town to more than make up for there being other Quiznos around. There are still only a fraction of Quiznos locations in the US as compared to their major competitors. I was looking for us to build critical mass so that we could advertise nationally and build name awareness. When I started we didn't have any name awareness and it was very tough. As people began to hear about and recognize us my sales increased. I always found that good locations with dedicated owners that really worked their businesses always did fairly well. They weren't getting rich quick, but they were making a living and expanding. Poor sites with weak owners obviously failed, and there were a lot of them around. In many cases I saw failing stores purchased by strong owners that took them over, doubled or tripled sales within months, and either kept them or sold them at a profit. I know a number of people that made a lot of money just doing this. The fact that they were able to buy stores at a discount did not cause sales to double or triple. They did this by being strong owners, outgoing marketers, and providing great service and great food. It's amazing how you canjust walk into a store today and tell if it is well run within one minute. Many owners today are very surly, the place is filthy, and they don't treat people very well. When you are charging a premium for a product, that is probably not going to work real well. 5. I am very glad to be be out of the system given the mind set of many owners today. Quiznos grew in the first place because people like me made it happen. There was no support to speak of, food cost was always high, I paid about the same fees, and had to figure it out on my own. Sometimes fear of failure and desperation is a great teacher. Some times it just paralyzes people. Each of us knows what camp we are in, we just have to look at the bank account and there is the score card. I certainly hope they turn things around, and I believe thatey are on that road. I think it will take another 2 - 3 years to get it done.
Re: some suggestions by Guest
VIP Guest wrote: "1. Pricing, not much you can do about the cost of goods sold, and I agree that the mark ups were ridiculous." Thank You, VIP Guest. That IS a central point in the TSFA's lawsuits against Q filed on behalf of all current franchise owners. When the truth be known, I hope it lands the Shadys, Steve S. and the rest of the crooks in jail, and the members of the new "dream team" unable to find suitable employment ...... !
What crime did Quizno's management commit? by Truth in Franchising

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

Q Territories by michael webster
michael webster's picture

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"


Michael by Guest
I must say you live in a very cynical ivory tower. I can't say that I attribute luck to much of why I was eventually successful. Have fun expounding on your theories of trademark dilution etc.. The rest of us have to live in the real world where cash is king, and theories don't pay the bills. It seems to me that a PhD LLB like yourself would have a better handle on business basics, but I can see that you don't live in the real world. Your snyde remarks and critical tone are clearly your trademarks. I'm sure we can all trust you to uphold the standard of those trademarks consistently.
Trademark Dilution by michael webster
michael webster's picture

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"


Don't worry, I'm heading your way soon by Guest
I have a place on Palace Pier in Etobicoke. I'll be up there in a few weeks and I plan on stopping by to say hello. I pulled your contact info from your web site. By the way, given that you clearly make a living only when others fail, your attitude is no big suprise. The rest of us non PhD LLB's don't have that luxury in life.
Looking Forward to It by michael webster
michael webster's picture

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"


For Crying out Loud!!!! by Guest
It's amazing that you all have time to blog on this endless debate. Has quizno’s been mismanaged? Yes. So what the hell are you all debating about? To the one complaining about restaurant costs and crap, how about you stop being a victim and stop spending your valuable time blogging and complaining from behind a computer and get out in front of some nearby office buildings and sell some lunch catering or something? What are you doing to try to generate some sales, improve your top line and salvage your investment? Don't you think your time would be better spent even, if you instead of blogging lazily at your desk, you have a store staff meeting and boost morale and remind your employees to smile at their customers, remind them to thank your customers for their business and remind your staff to keep the store clean? You can never remind your staff too much about quality, cleanliness, and service issues. In the 10 minutes spent blogging, you could have made a phone call to your store manager to have an impromptu staff meeting because you want to tell them what a great job everyone is doing and how you appreciate their efforts. You can get in front of your customers personally at a store and, as the owner of the franchise, thank your customers for buying your product. A happy staff provides intangible benefits which pay dividend four fold. Complaining does not. Your issues can all be mitigated to some degree, but not from behind a computer screen blogging negatively. If you have time to do this, god only knows how much other inefficiencies you have in your operations. Pull it together and stop crying, focus on your business, or trust me, you'll have plenty of time to blog about your bankruptcy case instead. And then guess what….next thing you know, you'll have three self inflicted bullet wounds to your chest, complaining and complaining every step of the way. Turn it around. Make it happen. Don’t rely on this to resolve itself without you taking the reigns. Or you can wallow in the mud like the previous blogger and see where it get’s you.
Guest Response by Guest
Guest, Your response to my questions seem as one sided as a Q-contract. You talk as though the zees are just tools to Q. 1. Why would you say that when Quizno's obviously wants to keep growing and sell more franchises? 2. Don't you believe by taking care of the zee (YOUR PARTNERS IN BUSINESS) you will experience growth as well? I actually agree with you one some points. But not all Q-zees are looking for hand outs or for the zor to save them. I know quite a handfull who are hardworking individuals who go beyond to make their investment work and still struggle. Do you work for Q or are you an investor with them? If that is the case, your postings here would shed light on the mindset there that worries me.
I owned a number of Quiznos a long time ago by Guest

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.

Horatio Alger by michael webster
michael webster's picture

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"


Michael by Guest
Give me your contact info and i'll be glad to call. I have no desire to become a public figure. My life is going particulary well. Of course I'm not a PhDLLB... like you, but somehow I manage.
Contact Information by michael webster
michael webster's picture

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"


More power to you. by Sleep Tight

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.

re: I owned a number of Quiznos a long time ago by Howard R. Morrill

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)?

Answers by Guest
Did they earn the money I paid them? Not at first, but yes over they years On my own I would not have achieved the level of wealth I have today.
Re: Answers by Howard R. Morrill

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?

Answers by Guest
Howard, I appreciate your professional and logical line of questioning. It seems others on the site might learn from your line of reasoning if they are to ever do more than spew hate and venom on anyone that has ever been successful at something they are failing at. Common business sense would make me think that while they might remain skeptical, they would simply ask for specific ideas they could implement instead of attacking me personally. 1. At first they really had nothing more than an unproven concept. They did have a basic model, but it was highly flawed, and they really could not help with problems that they had not run into themselves. As time went on both their and my learning curve was very steep, and we both benefited from one another.Tthere were a few other multi unit owners in the area and we met togther to try to figure things out. Eventually we reduced the cost of opening a store by about 100K, lowered operating expenses by redesigning the flow of the restaurant, designed and executed advertising and marketing that drove revenue, and grew very quickly. I became a large owner and went on from there. I eventually sold all of my stores, most at a premium because they were successful and there were a line of people willing to pay a premium for them. The first few years were very rough, but it got better over time, and eventually paid off. 2. As an independent I'm not sure I would have ever gotten started. I did not want to get stuck as a mom and pop for the rest of my life. I made some good money and learned a lot along the way. I went on to buy other companies and run other businesses largely based on my learning curve at Quiznos. Had I been given all of the answers up front I never would have figured it all out for myself, and would have been just another franchisee. In the end I believe that all things work out for the best if you stay positive, work your butt off, and never quit. By the way, I have yet to find the perfect business where the answers have been handed to me up front. I've had to work really hard, involve others and ask lot's of questions, and stick to it every time. I met some of the finest and best people in the world at Quiznos, and I'm still very close to many of them. They have continued to provide good advice, share ideas, and remain loyal and trusted friends. I know people hate to hear that, but some things in life have always been and will probably always be true.
re: Answers by Howard R. Morrill

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?

Multi-Unit Franichise Owner versuers Guest by Guest
Guest, You who has owned more Quiznos restaurants than anyone else on this board, please send me your e-mail address so I can compare notes. I have been a multi-unit operator of Quiznos for over ten years and wish to consult with the great prophet of what Quiznos is. You master Quiznos owner know it all, please tell me Grasshopper, how your experience of owning several Quiznos several years ago has any relevance to what is going on today? Ten years ago, we paid 1% advertising versues 4 or 5% today. Food cost was 27% versus 32% today. Yes grasshopper, you are the all knowing. And yes you are a Quiznos Corporate whore!! You have been exposed.
Good luck in life by Guest
I will not bother to address the cynical remarks and false statements following my post. For those of you that are dedicated to making a success of the investment that you have already made, I am simply telling you that it can be done. We had the same cost of sales problems, paid the same in fees, never had enough revenue, and it actually cost substantially more to open a store then it does today. I am not suggesting that you go out and buy a Quiznos today. I am suggesting that if you have already sunk the majority of your life savings into the business, and will be ruined financially if it doesn't work, there is a way other than just giving up. For those of you that wish to wallow in the mud, have at it. If you ever want to meet personally to express your hate, simply provide your contact info and I'll be happy to call you. Those of you that accused me in a hateful tone and with rude language, I would like to invite you to meet me in person. I'll foot the bill and then we'll see if you are as rude and brave in person.
Good Luck This Wise One by Guest
Todays Quiznos in no way resembles the Quiznos from even five years ago. Any long time Q owner will attest to food cost which ran 26% to 27%. Now that food cost is 3% higher. On $500,000 in yearly sales, this additional food cost each franchise owner an extra $15,000 a year. Not to mention that MAT markets pay in extra advertising expenses which decrease the profit by another $5,000. Add in higher paper and supply percent increases and the average owner is $25,000 less profitable than a few years ago. So wise one, the conditions have changed quite considerably from when you owned your vast quantities of Quiznos and went on to work at corporate Quiznos.
Meet in Person by michael webster
michael webster's picture

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"


Mr Q's Guru is fake, a Corporate shill by Guest
As many of you know by now, disinfomtation campaigns run by Qs abound on this site. This poster, the long soapy one, known now as Mr. Q's Guru, is a fake. If you monitor this site over time, you'll see exactly the same post, word for word. His words, circumstances and numbers are wrong. He is working the classic guilt campaign: its your fault. He will never meet anyone in person because he is busy at Qs Corporate in Denver most days or selling franchises on the road.
Mr. Quiznos Guru, I have a question? by Guest
Did you ever consider that sleeping on the floor for "months" might be sign things aren't as they should be financially? Let me guess....you couldn't afford pillows or blankets so you used bags of Quizno's paper napkins to cover yourself and you were thankful you had plenty of them. It was a blessing that the franchisor required you to order large numbers. Are the rest of you smelling the BS that I am?
Quizno's was correct by Paul Steinberg
Paul Steinberg's picture

Guest wrote: you couldn't afford pillows or blankets so you used bags of Quizno's paper napkins to cover yourself and you were thankful you had plenty of them

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
Re: Mr. Quiznos Guru, I have a question? by Guest
Guest wrote:"Are the rest of you smelling the BS that I am?" YES; it is a big stink bomb! In the same league as the horseshit we hear in every Friday morning's VM from corporate .......!
Mr. Quiznos Guru, I have a question? by Guest
Did you ever consider that sleeping on the floor for "months" might be sign things aren't as they should be financially? Let me guess....you couldn't afford pillows or blankets so you used bags of Quizno's paper napkins to cover yourself and you were thankful you had plenty of them. It was a blessing that the franchisor required you to order large numbers. Are the rest of you smelling the BS that I am?
Questions for Guest by Guest
Guest - You are fooloing yourself, I believe you wrote this in response to guest - RE: future royalties, but your response brings up a question or two. 1. You talk of quiznos as a cash cow. "That's the nature of their business". Interesting, I thought their business was selling great toasted sandwiches to one happy customer at a time! Or is that puffery? Please don't forget it is the zees hard work that allow them to be 'cash cows' in the first place. 2. You talk about how quiznos cut overhead to get thru these times. Good for them, all businesses should have that luxury during these hard times. However, do you know that the zees can only make limited overhead cuts due to contractual obligations? They simply don't have that luxury to cut hours or sell less product to help cut costs. Please note that some of the cost cuts the zor took, became cost burdens to the zees. 3. They will still continue their growth, albeit at a more careful pace. Are you admitting you believe it wasn't careful before. You seem to be very pro-zor. It's nice to see somebody on here who sticks up for Quiznos. There seems to be so few people that do. Because of your post, I have a better understanding for some of the reasons behind their actions. Thanks.
Answers by Guest
1. They are in business, like all corporations, to earn a return on investment. They are in the business of franchising. This may come as a shock to you but they have been extraordinarily successful in providing that return on investment to the shareholders. Franchisees are not, in case you missed it, shareholders. This clear fact seems to escape many franchisees. I believe that the original sharholders and investors are highly satisfied with their returns. 2. Wrong again. You are mixing up corproate expenses and overhead with franchisee operating expenses. I don't have the time to teach you the differences, but they are vast. They can cut costs down to pratically zero. They are not a retail center with required operating hours, costs of sale, advertising, rent etc.. They can outsource virtually every function within the company, and only incurr expenses upon the recipt of revenue. Very little fixed overhead in comparison to revenues. This may not get them where thay want to go in the long run, but it means they have the ability to nimbly manage expenses in the short run to gaurantee that they hit their financial obligations. 3.Obviously they were in a horse race to become the number 2 sandwich chain in the world. They clearly won that race against a slew of competitors. Had they not won that race no one would ever have heard of Quiznos. Now they have to go back and fix the mess they created along the way. That may take a couple of years. While it may continue to be messy for some time to come I suspect that they will get there in the end. I also suspect that they are in no great hurry since the best time for an IPO is probably 1 -2 years out anyway given the state of the equity markets. 4. I am pro-business and capitalism. I admire the successes that Quiznos achieved against substantial odds. 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 have had my share of business successes and failures. I know the pain of many of these posters, but I also know that there is generally another side to the story. You don't get to 5,000 stores without some success stories along the way. That is logically improbable and statistically impossible in the age of information in which we live. It is definitely not a popular position to take the side of Quiznos, or most other franchisors, particularly on this site. I have owned and am still heavily invested in many franchises. I have lost and made a lot of money along the way. 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.
Shock to you guest by Guest
"they have been extraordinarily successful in providing that return on investment to the shareholders" I'm still laughing at this idiot who thinks he knows Quiznos inside out. Quiznos has done a lousy job of returning value to shareholders. You idiot, Quiznos stock value when it was a public traded company did nothing. A large shareholder group successfully sued Quiznos a few years ago claiming fraud when they took the company back private. The Schadens screw franchise owners and shareholders alike. You patting yourself on the back and taking the "I know it all attitude" makes you look like a bufoon. What was Quiznos operating income when they were a public company? You don't know or you wouldn't be making "cash cow" claims in all your posts. What are Quiznos earnings since they went private which are listed in the UFOC? You don't know. There seems to be a lot you don't know.
Good R.O.I.?? by Guest
"Extraordinaly Successful" ????? Fagan teamed up with other sophisticated shareholders, hired private attorneys, and preserved his dissenter's rights under Colorado law. Last week, more than two years after the buyout, Judge Robert McGahey ruled the true value of Quiznos at the time of the 2001 buyout was $32.50 a share, not $8.50. Since the judge ordered Quiznos to pay legal fees on top of that amount, Fagan and his group will collect the full $32.50 if Quiznos' planned appeal of the verdict is denied.
Great ROI by Guest
How many billionaires do you know in the restaurant business? The Schadens are certainly in that category. i would say that was a hell of an ROI!
Pro Q by michael webster
michael webster's picture

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"


TSFA by Guest
Guest wrote: Quiznos will never recognize the TSFA, there is nothing in it for them. Guest, We members of the TSFA understand that all to well, that is why our membership keeps growing. Keep in mind there is nothing in it for us zees if we don't join the TSFA, we understand that as well.
Puffery by Guest
I agree Paul. Thank you for your input as well. I do have to say that if they would have left that part out of the UFOC, there is a good chance I wouldn't have signed the agreement. I considered that as a 'lets work together' comment which made the brand (at the time) seem more trustworthy. Same with the marketing comments about the studies they do when they find locations for stores.
Puffery by Guest
Thanks Dan, That clears it up for me quite well. I believe some lines were crossed, but we will see..
yes? by Guest
You stand behind you convictions Guest...but I doubt that this is their plan, to see as many franchisees fail that have failed. Does Quiznos think that having 40% of their franchisees not break even a good business plan? I agree with you on the comment of corporate not wanting to recognize the TSFA.
Puffery by Guest
Paul, I have been hearing the term 'puffery' often as of late. I am interested in how it is used to explain certain language on the UFOC and contract documents, but not others. For example: if they view the Quizno's language in the UFOC about 'working to negotiate pricing on behalf of the zees' as puffery, then the other part in the UFOC about me having to purchase all items from prefered vendors could be 'puffery' as well. It's right next to the 'We were just kidding' clause! I respect your insight on these issues, but I get confused at times with the legal end of things. Where does 'puffery' end and 'fraud' begin? I am not sure of the Guest posting 'Think Again' If Quiznos has all this great data, then why are they hiding? They have had more than one oppertunity to show us the facts. The TSFA as well as numerous zees have been asking this for years. Also, how do you know we can't prove anything in court? Care to back up that claim?
Opposite of "puffery" by Paul Steinberg
Paul Steinberg's picture

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
Re: Opposite of "puffery" by Guest
Paul - thanks for clarifying the legal definition of the term, and for amplifying the definition with examples. Even though Q's FA was written by an army of lawyers to take into account everything falls in their favor, they missed a few ....... ! This one I hope comes to bite them on their collective a$$es.
No Perfect Crime by Guest
Paraphrasing former FBI Chief J. Edgar Hoover, there is no perfect crime. Therefore, no matter how smart the Schadens and their team of high priced lawyers are/were there were things that were missed and/or couldn't be completely covered by the UFOC or applicable law. The responsibility of the "young lawyer" is to find those items and bring them before a judge willing to fairly hear the evidence and adjudicate based on the evidence.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Notifications