Coffee Beanery Story To Be Presented to Congress
Activist Group Attempts to Eliminate Binding Mandatory Arbitration Agreements from Consumer Contracts
Washington, D.C. (Blue MauMau) - The American Association for Justice has just contacted Coffee Beanery franchisees Richard Welshans and Deborah Williams, asking permission to use their arbitration story on their activist website. Collen Briggs, AAJ's Grassroots Coordinator for Public Affairs, states that their association expects a bill to be introduced shortly that will eliminate binding mandatory arbitration agreements from consumer contracts.
Her letter is as follows:
Dear Deborah and Richard,
I received your contact information from Paul Bland at Public Justice.
AAJ would like to feature your arbitration story on our activist website www.peopleoverprofits.org. We expect a bill to be introduced in the near future that would eliminate binding mandatory arbitration agreements from consumer contracts. This will be a tough legislative fight so we are asking people to contact their Congressmen and urge them to pass this important bill. Your story will help put a face on the issue and is extremely important in the success of the campaign.
Can we use your story on our website, to send out to our activists and to present to Congress?
If so then could you please let me know a brief summary of your story?
Do you have a picture we could use to accompany the story?
Thank you so much for your help on this important issue. Feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns. We are trying to get this completed by the end of the week so please let me know as soon as possible.
Best Regards,
Colleen Briggs
Grassroots Coordinator, Public Affairs
American Association for Justice
Formerly Association of Trial Lawyers of America
Washington, DC 20007
More to follow...
Coffee Beanery in Congress
I think that Coffee Beanery and Maryland have to be thinking that the zees involved in this case have to have more proving that they are right then CB has to prove they are innocent. This case had to have been one of the greatest injustices to go down in quite a while. Think about all of the arbitrations there are on any given day and look at the up roar this case has caused. Will any one step up to the plate and the right thing? Maryland has to be in shock that things are this out of control. CB amended the UFOC after they violated The Consent Order, the arbitrator awarded for CB and now this award will be used as a testiment to the injustices of mandatory arbitration. I think that Richard and Deborah have suffered quite a blow from our Judicial System in every aspect of this case and I wish them the best of luck. They also have my respect
ATLA & "consumer" contracts
First, I must say that ATLA does much fine work educating the public and as a law student, I benefited from ATLA's support of our Trial Institute, for which I remain appreciative.
Secondly, there is evidence that Coffee Beanery lied in the disclosure documents, and such lies were material and made in order to induce purchase of the franchise by the aggrieved zees.
But...
There is a lot wrong with the current ADR regime, and legitimate issues. But this left-wing flakiness won't even get much traction with Pelosi, let alone with the general public.
Consumer Contracts?
While it may be tempting to jump right away at the Consumer Contract statement it may also be interesting to take a step back and realize how protected the world of franchising is. The American Association For Justice and Paul Bland fight against mandatory arbitration, the fact that this is the first arbitration case that involves franchising should not be critisized but celebrated. The injustice of what can happen in franchising has been such a well kept secret that this association is for the first time reporting a franchise arbitration gone wrong. The American Association For Justice should be commended for thier acknowledgement that franchisees can be victims of arbitration as well. One of the reasons they are taking this case is because of the documented proof that entered into evidence at arbitration and the out rageous ruling that resulted. Type F. Paul Bland into your browser and read about the success he has had in getting courts to realize what arbitration is doing to not just consumers but franchising. This is the attorney that over turned the ruling in the COOPS case in California. This attorney presented an argument concerning Judges ruling that the arbitrator should decide if a case should be arbitrated. His ewxact words were " How riduculous is it that an arbitrator will decide if a case is to be arbitrated." He won that argument. Judges should decide if something is to be arbitrated. Franchising needs all of the help it can get. We should be celebrating the fact that franchising is not being ignored becasue of CONSUMER CONTRACTS. Does this mean that franchisees should be over looked in the war against mandatory arbitration? I hope not, I thought that we were all involved in the fight to level the leagl playing field.
CB going to Congress
I commend Deborah and Richard for continuing to fight this grave injustice. I also would like to thank them for helping to make public the abuse inflicted on innocent zees by bad zors. All zors are not bad guys, but all through franchise history bad zors are hidden with the good zors and it is about time someone aided in our continuing fight to weed the bad guys out. It appears that CB has been hiding with the good zees and have had a lot of help from the very agencies that pledge to protect the victims. Lets continue to band together and weed out and expose all of the bad zors and bring integrity to franchising
Franchising
When me and Deborah decided to look into franchising we were not aware of anything that suggested franchising was an industry with many hidden secrets. The only people who know any of the stories involving headlines like the the franchisee who took his own life last November, are the members of this secret organization. When you think about the information highway tha we have today it is incrediable that this secret organization continues to thrive in its own little world.
Then there is this whole judicial system that has been created by those who can afford to lobby for the laws to keep this secret in tack.
We have been exposed to the good the bad and the ugly.
When Maryland issued The Consent Order we were in shock that it was restricted.
When we contacted Maryland to let them know CB was in violation of The Order we were told that they would look into it.
When we found out that they looked into it and had CB amend it, we were outraged.
We have sritten to Attorney General Gansler to ask him to help us find out why CB is given chance after chance and yet we are being hung out ot dry.
After hammering away we finally recieved news that an investigation will be under way. We are told that it may take some time to conclude. Keep in mind that we have supplied the documents to validate the violations of The Order.
Then we have our arbitration. You only need to go to the Trial Lawyers for Public Justice and look at all that Paul Bland has done in his fight to stop mandatory arbitration. Paul has been fighting this injustice for many years and it is all he does. Paul told us that our arbitration was the most unfair he has encountered this year. We can not impress upon you what kind of weight a comment like this carries from this man.
He gave our contact information to Colleen Briggs, and told her the same thing.
When you are stripped of your Constitutional Right of trial by a jury of your peers and then railroaded into this private judicial system that is not being policed, you can't appreciate what we have been through. Read this arbitrators award carefully. She confirms we were given an earnings claim but she does not beleive it played a part in our decision to sign a FA. She says that it is not known if the Pepsi contract was in effect when we signed our FA. She has this contract that is clearly dated 10/1999-6/2006
we signed our FA in 2003. We can go, but the real tell tale sign of how this private system can work is when she has the nerve to over rule a State Regulator.
This is our story. People needto know that there is much that goes on in franchising, good, bad or ugly it needs to be brought out in the open. We beleive that this is how you will seperate the bad from the good. Right now the way things are, there is to much money being paid to keep the secret protected
Our fight is not with the entire Franchise Industry.
Our fight is with CB and the people who protect them at all cost.
Our fight is with Maryland and why CB was allowed to register a UFOC in violation with The Order.
Why CB was allowed to amend the UFOC while all the while they knew that information of a violation would help us in trying to vacate the award.
Our fight is with Maryland because it has taken 3 months for them to acknowledge our complaints of CB and the violations
Our fight is with forced arbitration and the part it now plays in keeping franchisees from finding justice.
Our fight is with a system that allowed total disregard for the law and total disregard for a State Regulator and the conclusions of law.
This arbitrators decision is an absolute disregard for law and can only hurt any advancement that has been made to regulate or enforce franchise law.
We have asked to testify in person to Congress and present what happened.
Coffee Beanery and Congress
Some one posted a question as to playing this out in the media being a wise thing to do. I have been following the case and reading all of the attachments and I think that this is the only way Richard or Deborah will get a level playing field. There is something very wrong going here. Just look at the facts. Maryland allows UFOCs to be registered and amended and registered again when not in compliance. It takes months to get Maryland to relent and review "possible violations". An arbitrator over rules a State Regulator. Then The Trial Lawyers for Public Justice step in and brand this case as the most unfair to have come before them this year. While its good to have debates on various topics in franchise rights and wrongs, this is not the one that warrants debate. This is the one that threatens to expose a system that is out of control. I think that there qre more questions that should be directed to Maryland and to an arbitrator who over rules a Regulator.
If you can't see the danger of what has happened here then you need to find a new occupation. The battle for franchise reform is fragile to say the least, now you have an arbitrator that just set this industry back 10 years. It is hard enough to get anyone to enforce franchise law as it is. We don't need arbitrators ruling contrary to regulators. WAKE UP AND SMELL THE DANGER. Then of course we have a regulator that seems to over look thier findings in this case as well.
Janet, consumer contract...what consumer contract?
This is a commercial business contract.
Arbitration and CB
This Thursday we will attend a press conference with the 3 Senators who will present Congress with a bill to stop mandatory arbitration. Our story will be told and this is just one more blow to the arbitrator and her award for Coffee Beanery.
Bubba Sparky
Bubba where are you? I want to find out what else is in your 2002 verision of CB UFOC. This is not the first time I have run in to this
If CB is at fault so be it...
However let's realise that we have only heard/read Richard and Deborah's account of the matter. I'll wait for it to all play out before I will declare that Richard and Deborah are innocent victims.
We are simply not in a position know the facts!
PATRIOT EXPRESS WARNING TO VETERANS' SPOUSES
It is interesting to note that these loans are available to the spouses of the target group of the SBA Initiative known as the PATRIOT EXPRESS.
In the summary from the SBA Notice in the Federal Register, it appears that the SBA expects a "protracted war on terror" and whoever stays home in the United States, either Mom or Pop, can flip hamburgers at Burger King or McDonald's or prepare Rootbeer Floats at Sonics while they are waiting for the Love of their Life to come back from foreign shores. But, of course, I must be wrong; they will be owners who can hire PT help. This special loan must be to permit this target group to make so much in profits that someone can stay home with the kids?
Was this an initiative that came out of the Small Business Committees of the Senate and the Congress. Anyone know??
CONSUMER CONTRACTS
In Texas, selling franchises by unfair/dishonest means (not a statutory quote) - means that violate the FTC franchise rule - is evidence of violating the Deceptive Trade Practices Act - which is the Texas consumer protection act.
If the conduct is shown to be intentional, the act provides for treble damages, and you can also get attorney fees.
Nobody would omit to add a DTPA claim in Texas. In Federal Court it would go in as a claim under pendant jurisdiction.
Richard Solomon
www.FranchiseRemedies.com
Consumer Contracts?
Title: "Eliminate binding mandatory arbitration agreements from consumer contracts?"
Reply: "Since when did Franchise Agreements become 'consumer contracts'? " - Steinberg
That is exactly the same question that this non-lawyer was thinking. A consumer who buys a hamburger is quite different than a businessman's agreement in buying a business. Consumer?
First arb case
It is not the "first arbitration case" involving franchising. You should read the Subway case which was decided by the Supreme Court, among others.
CB ---Congress --Material Risk Not Disclosed
Hopefully, in investigating the Coffee Beanery injustice and the strange behavior of the State of Maryland in all of this, some truth will surface. I, personally, believe that arbitration as mandated in franchise agreements is a denial of due process.
Since the material risk of investment and purchase of all franchises can be hidden from view in the transfer colums of Item 20 of the State UFOC's, it is obvious that there is federal-state cooperation in encouraging lively commerce in all of the States of the United States while obscuring the actual and real risk of investment in franchised business plans.
It appears that franchising may not be covered under State consumer protection laws or this is in question, at least, and the UFOC's are the governing law.
Richard Solomon explains the risks to franchisees and while I am not schooled in the law, he appears to indicate that the courts in summary judgment can dismiss law suits and that very often arbitration is the only safe avenue open to franchisees under the terms of their contracts. (I'm sure that he will correct me if I misinterpreted his post)
I agree with the Poster, this public airing of the absolute power of an arbitrator to ignore the law to support existing policy may tweak the Congress to look at the public policy concerning franchising and do something to protect franchisees from predatory franchisors who sell unviable franchise products to the public.
AAJ and Consumer Contract
I think the guest has not read this thread before asking the question. It is AAJ calling it a consumer contract, not Janet.
And here are the resident franchise lawyers explaining why the franchise arbitration agreement can be considered a "consumer contract".
Consumer, employee, or franchisee
Recent discussion on ABA board mentioned the We Care Hair (a failed Subway concept) litigation finding the zees were not "vulnerable consumers or helpless employees" (180 F3d 838, 7 Cir. [1999]) in contrast to the Mailbox Center Owner case that found franchisee agreements to be similar to employment agreements (133 CalApp 4th 396, [2005])
Overwhelming majority of US jurisdictions agree with 7th Circuit, but California may be recognizing the true nature of these agreements which are often "buying a job".
Split of opinion
There is a split of judicial opinion as to whether a franchise purchase is a "consumer" purchase. It was a while back that I checked, but as I recall some states gave franchise purchases protection under their Baby FTC act, some did not, and others said that it depended on the cause of action pled by the franchisee. As I recall, prevailing law in the EU was that franchise purchases were not consumer contracts.
It is worth noting that the eminence grise of American contract law, Prof. Farnsworth, discussed Sealy's analysis of the nature of the franchise purchase and noted that it was a controversial view.
I don't buy the argument that Mr. & Mrs. Smith are on an equal footing with Subway Sandwiches. But if a "consumer" purchase is one for personal or household use, I don't see that purchasing a business qualifies as a "consumer" purchase. That is not to say that we should not regulate it as such, but I don't think we need to do violence to the English language by calling it a "consumer" purchase.
HARD TO SORT OUT THE RIGHTS AND WRONGS OF ARB IN A BAD CASE MODE
It probably isn't helping people to understand the differences between arb and trial in court if you use this particular CB case fact pattern as the vehicle for explaining it.
Just as you can come up with an arbitrator with a particular mind set, you can come up with a judge of similar persuasion or a jury that just isn't buying your version of the situation. In either arb or in litigation, witnesses don't always have a good day, and a squishy witness can blow a case if it's a principal witness. Sometimes even if a witness is being truthful, if the jury just doesn't like the testimony because they don't like the witness, the result can come out bad.
But my point is that in this case you would not even have been able to get your fraud evidence admitted into evidence in the first place - the jury wouldn't have been able to hear it.
The reason for this is that a summary judgment motion probably would have cut your case short because of the doctrines of waiver and ratification.
Where you don't make your case when you learn the true facts, but continue to operate using the franchisor's idientity, you have failed - according to these doctrines - to demand recission and to tender back the elements of the franchisor's good will/identity. With any rescission demand there must also be a tender back of what you have that belongs to the franchisor. According to the franchisee here, they didn't do that.
On those facts a motion for summary judgment would have cut off the fraud case, and at the very least a motion in limine would have cut off the introduction of the fraud evidence. In either such event, the franchisee would lose the case if it were in court.
You actually had a better chance in arbitration, because if you had drawn a different arbitrator, the arbitrator isn't bound to follow the rules of evidence and, as Judge Duggan confirmed, isn't bound to follow the law that closely either.
The result is that on the law, you had a better chance in arbitration in this case than you would have had in court. Therefore, this isn't really a good vehicle to show that arbitration itself is the source of some unfairness.
Mr. Brand may have a tough time dealing with that problem. It is highly unlikely that the attorneys for CB will miss that or that it won't be pointed out in pre hearing briefing in the Congressional session. If the Congressional exercise isn't just a window dressing theater event, you can expect to be confronted with that problem - and you better have a way to deal with it.
Richard Solomon
www.FranchiseRemedies.com
Coffee Beanery ----The concept of the buyer and the seller
It is so obvious that the seller, Coffee Beanery, disguised the risk of the investment as well as some of the terms, and this is obvious fraud under concumer protection laws.
But, the arbitrator just ignored the findings of the regulators in Maryland and forced the arbitration on the basis of the terms agreed to in the adhesory and unconscionable franchise agreement. As I understand it, CB insisted on a ten-year lease and knew they were selling a lousy franchise concept to Deborah and Richard.
It does look like the arbitrator was determined to protect federal policy and she felt very safe in ignoring substantive law.
This is kind of frightening and let's hope the Congress opens their eyes and does something to prevent the sacrificing and the silencing of the lambs.
CB at Fault
Look at this case , read the attachments. If CB started talking today it soes not change what is in front of you in black and white. Take a look at what is going on in Maryland and it does not take rocket science to see that there is justice for those who can afford it. From what I read Richard and Deborah don't have a penny to thier name but I think they are doing OK in gathering strength for thier cause. Just try getting Trial Lawyers For Public Justice and then lets not even forget Paul Bland is not easy to get a hold of. Come on there is meat to this story. This story is rocking the worlds of quite a few who never thought these two would rock it. Just sit back and watch These two have been wronged in every turn thay have taken and they keep coming back. This is what franchising needs and I think it scares those who have enjoyed the silence of the lambs up to this point
Consumer Contract
Thank you. Mandatory arbitration is arbitration period. I'm glad that you brought that up. It really bothers me when people are not sure if arbitration in FA agreements is the same as arbitration in any other agreement. Paul Bland knows, he has fought many battles for franchisees and won. Franching is dangerous because it is protected from the public eye by a very powerful force. This needs to be addressed. The abuse that takes place in franchising happens because the abusers are very confident that they will not be exposed.
I've read the thread...Janet is pretending to be a reporter
Sparks has been reporting on franchising legal issues for some time now and for her not to mention in her general post on Blue mau mau that it seemed odd to characterize franchise agreements as consumer contracts.
Richard Welshans and Deborah Williams
Richard makes a good point that in your case arbitration was likely a better venue for you.
What I find utterly absurd is that you have broadcasted your intentions related to this matter publicly. And while you may feel some sense of vindication do you really think it helps your case especially since your adversary in this matter is going to read all of your comments? When I am in litigation I want to win! Winning is everything and losing sucks!
Wrongs of Arb
Recission was asked for three times. All three times we have in writing that CB would not recind. Your theroy would have a franchisee pack up everything and send it back to the Zor. In the mean time you are still bound by the FA. Lets not even mention that the Zor may not accept the delivery of The Tender Back. What do you then do when the Zor does not return your franchise fee and the money that was spent to purchase what you just tendered back? File a suit? The Zor then will counter with a suit of breaching the FA. Now the Zor has no legal obligation.
While in litigation the last thing you want is to be they party who is in violation. Not to mention your lease. As far as your arbitration knowledge you need a brush up. First of all his name is Paul Bland not Brand. This man is the foremost expert in the field of mandatory arbitration. You keep refering to "evidence" The evidence you reference is as follows: Maryland and Michigan Franchise Law, The FTC Rule, our UFOC and documents from CB corporate office confirming the charges. Then lets not forget that this arbitrator over ruled a State Regulator. You also failed to mention that arbitration is very expensive. Arbitrators are paid by the hour and depend on the companies that will arbitrate more then one time as opposed to the people who are only there that one time. So the big companies are the people that will keep them working. Arbitration is not policed or second guessed. Now when you compare that to having your case heard in a traditional court room, you have the jusges who are already paid through our tax dollars. The Judge will get paid every day no matter who is sueing who.You have court reporters to ensure there is a record of your case. In arbitration you have to pay for this. If a Judge rules in what you consider in error, you can appeal. This once again is covered by our tax dollars, attorneys fees are always in addition. Read Judge Duggans response and then tell me anyone with half a brain would chance that kind of outcome. He says " even if the arbitrator makes a mistake, the decision is silly, or they misapply the law or just don't understand the law. The decision is binding" Yeah that is the chance everyone is chomping at that bit to take. You really need to look further into mandatory arbitration this is an area where you fall short. As far as playing this out in the public, we feel that the public has a right to know what can happen.
Once again Richard you fail to ask for documents or facts to back up your statement
and just ramble on about what you don't know. As far as being prepared for a presentation before Congress, that is the easy part. I'm sure you are not the only mislead sole when it comes to arbitration. For most people the mere fact that someone can be stripped of thier Constitutional Right to a trial by a jury of your peers is enough to put the rest of us on alert that there is a private judicial system that is not being policed and is catering to people who can afford the price of justice
Juries may be a crap shoot but bad arbitrators are the crap
Richard Solomon tells the truth about the system as it is now set up. He didn't invent the system and he has no ability as an attorney to change the status quo.
He is an Officer of the Court and can't indulge in conversations that suggest that the system might be rigged to protect franchisors. This is not done by attorneys if they want to survive to practice in the Courts.
Neither can Paul Steinberg or Michael Webster, attorneys who also post on this network, do anything about the status of the law governing franchising. But, it is because they always tell the truth about the law in their postings that I have been able to figure some things out.
When I, who am not an attorney, and who have had no education in the law, first started to research franchising to find out how and why we were so wounded by our good faith investment in a UPS Store, it was Richard Solomon's copywrited articles and Les Stewarts postings on Blue Mau Mau and Franchise Fool, etc.. along with my own research on GOOGLE that led me to MY Truth that I have tried to share with the readers.
As always, I thank Richard Solomon, and Paul Steinberg, and Michael Webster, and Les Stewart, and even Dale Nabors for sharing their knowledge and ideas with me and their conversations with each other, from which I learned.
Silencing the Lambs with co-terminus Lease Agreements
Obviously, CB felt very safe in selling this lousy product to Richard and Deborah because they knew that if the business failed, the 10-year lease would act as a silencer and throw them into bankruptcy.
I think they indicated that CB demanded a ten-year lease and indicated in the franchise agreement that if CB wanted the Cafe, they would assume the lease and pay the franchisees for the tangible assets and the buildups. I'm sure CB had the right of "first refusal" in any sale transfer, as well, but, as I understand, it Deborah and Richard never had their business up for sale so CB couldn't play the old third-party fire-sale game with them.
But, of course, these predatory franchisors with unviable business plans premeditate failure in their contracts and they never acquire the failing units, except through 3rd parties, who can get them for nothing.
It is a kind of "grand larceny" that is possible because the failure rate of the business plans can be hidden under our laws and franchisees are not thinking in terms of failure when they put so much at risk and don't realize the "bad faith" that is premeditated in the contract.
They never believe that these apparently resspectible and nice people they are dealing with are thieves who can profit even when they fail. The franchisee-franchisor relationship is certainly not a partnership because the franchisor doesn't share in the business failure of the franchisee who rents the brand name and takes all the risk of the investment of his/her capital and labor.
It is because franchisors don't have any actual financial investment in the physical units that bear their brand names that they can indulge in churning to present visibilty that translates to viability for buyers who don't know how many first-generation franchisees have failed when they look at the network.
Ugly public policy.
The Lambs
Let me tell you how bad this concept is. Coffee Beanery does not even want the right of first refusal. Most of these cafes close or are sold to an independent. The majority just fold up and go away. There are only a handful that have remained a franchise. I can think of only 5 that remained in the system
The problem with arbitration is
that all too often it is mandatory and binding; that it doesn't necessarily rely on any type of precedent; that it frequently has those without a legal background making decisions that should be predicated, at least in part, on some sort of legal basis; that these decisions are frequently not provided to the public; that arbitrators can often arbitrarily decide whether or not to use any evidentiary or procedural rules; that arbitration by necessity caters to repeat customers leaving arbitrators to at least be cognizant that a ruling against these repeat customers will likely be literally biting the hand that feeds them; that these repeat customers often structure agreements requiring mandatory binding arbitration so that equitable and legal remedies are split between arbitration and the courts in a manner most beneficial to the zor and detrimental to the zee; that arbitration is popularly believed, and in most cases erroneously, to be cheaper than the alteratives; and that arbitration or even litigation in most cases, will solve your all problems or even make you "whole."
Other than that, I have no problems with it.
Due Diligence & Arbitration
A point which should be made, which I have not yet seen made is that ultimately the issue of 'Arbitration' ties back to 'due-diligence'.
Proper and effective due-diligence includes negotiation of the terms and conditions of the Franchise Agreement prior to entering into the relationship. Guest Writes (above):
This right is not 'Stripped' but rather relenquished by the parties to the agreement for the perceived mutual benefit of the respective parties. If you are not a 'fan' of arbitration or if you do not believe that arbitrtion will work to bring about an accaptable resolution to a future dispute then DO NOT AGREE to arbitration.
IF you do agree to Arbitration you have the need and the right to negotiate the terms and conditions which will govern the the arbitration process and procedures in advance as part of the Franchise Agreement.
If you fail in performing proper due diligence you may give up rights that you did not fully realize that you're giving up. Another part of proper due-diligence is to not JUST think about when things go right -- but to think about what if things go wrong - and to prepare for them to do so. It's the old adage 'Expect the best - Prepare for the Worst".
Believe & Succeed,
Dale
FranSynergy, Inc.
Synergizing Franchising!
www.fransynergy.com
The Problem with Arbitration
Bubba you are right again. We had to travel from Maryland to Michigan for 11 days of arbitration that was scheduled for 3. This required air fare for both of us and our attorney and we flew back and forth 3 or 4 times. Hotel for us and our attorney. Rental car, meals for us and our attorney, court reporter fees in excess of $18,000. The AAA administrative fee,filing fee and the arbitrators fee were in excess of $20,000. We had attorneys fees,we had to rent the meeting room, beverage service, reproduction of all of the documents, shipping the documents back and forth and then the normal fees that you woud pay for witness supeona's and so on. Our cost, Almost $100,000. The arbitrator only worked 6 hour days. And all the while I have paid the Judges salary with my tax money.
Bubba Truth
I guess the fact that arbitration is arbitrary and often unfair and is of great advantage to ZORS should not be a surprise to anyone -- and that it is a federal tool to protect the economy from the punishing affects and effects of collective bargaining on the employers and the franchisors is the reason we have the Act to begin with.
It is an "end justifies the means" kind of argument that those who want to maximize their profits use on those who are in the legislatures and the Congress to protect the economy and the public good.
Contracts of Adhesion ----Relinquishing Due Process Rights
Come on, Dale! Be one of the good guys. You know that the UFOC confirms to the prospective buyer that this is a "standard" contract that the franchisor is offering and that there is no bargaining of the UFOC that underlies the contract.
If they need a job, and this looks like a terrific opportunity to earn a living and make profits and be AWARDED a franchise and be part of a famous or not so famous brand, they have to accept the terms of the contract to get that job.
You are always honest, Dale, in your fashion and you know that this is true.
You are using that undemocratic argument that was used to try to defeat child-labor and women-labor laws and workplace laws -- the "freedom of contract" concept that protected the exploiters of women and children and working class people who are forced into unconcionable contracts to earn their daily bread.
Due Diligence
We did not relenquish our rights. We have an adendum to FA signed by us and CB. This clearly states that CB waive the right to trial outside of MD. and agree to suit in Md. for violations that fall under The Maryland Registration and Disclosure Laws even if the franchisee is forced out of the state of Maryland the franchisee still retains the right to file suit in any court in the state. By the way Maryland is also considered to be one of the states with The Little FTC Act
It started out okay
but ADR, arbitration specifically, quickly became an instrument ripe for abuse by those with the knowledge to do so - look at the clauses in your credit card/cell phone/banking/etc contracts - its a thinly veiled due process nightmare, HOWEVER, although I am all for efforts to fix this significant problem, think of the opposition this will face - the rationale behind the enactment of the FAA presumptively favors keeping arbitration and ADR as an alterative to litigation and those with an interest in the status quo will inevitably have substantial lobbying power...
Foolish gamble...
You didn't perform due diligence before you invested in Coffee Beanery and you didn't perform due diligence before you invested in the litigation and your attorney. You folks are out of your mind! And if you say it's about the principle of the matter or we did it so we could save others from the same fate as yours; you're an even bigger fool.
I think your case is weak, weak, weak and you've thrown good money after bad.
Exploiting Veterans for Profit and Politics!
Is this the truth?
Yes Dale come on you know its true!
You need to fess up about what you know about UFOCs being standard and that you were seen in Chicago on a street corner. Tell us the truth!
Deal Killer
So let's spread the word:
You often reference "the need for a job". I've hired and not hired lots of people in my career. I've meet LOTS of people who NEEDED a job, but turned down many --- because it did not PAY ENOUGH. So Pay became a "Deal Killer" --- the same can be said for the Franchise Agreement --- if it contains a 'Deal Killer' don't sign it.
Believe & Succeed,
Dale
FranSynergy, Inc.
Synergizing Franchising!
www.fransynergy.com
Chicago & Kittens
Yep, UFOC's are Standard Fare - so says the FTC! Yes, I was seen just outside of McCormick Place - finishing off one last slice of Gino's Pizza. But I had NO PART in hurting the kitties!
NOW FOR A TRUE STORY. My younger brother was about 14 and wanted to buy a 6'+ Boa-Constrictor. We're sitting at the dinner table and he's trying to talk my parents into letting him buy it. My very conservative and pragmatic father asks "Where are you going to keep a 6-foot long boa constrictor?" to which my brother had an answer. My father went on to ask: "Well son, what do you think you're going to feed a 6-foot long boa constrictor?" Without missing a beat, my brother replies "Every Sunday's newspaper has lots of "Free Kittens".
My Brother did go on to get his snake. He eventually owned about a dozen of them --- but to my knowledge no kittens were ever sacrificed - but many a mouse & rat were swallowed whole.
Believe & Succeed,
Dale
FranSynergy, Inc.
Synergizing Franchising!
www.fransynergy.com
Foolish Gamble
Here we go again. So here I go again. First of all WE DID OUR DUR DILIGENCE. As far as our case being weak, weak, weak, you are wrong, wrong, wrong. Once again read the facts, do it slowly so you can keep up, but read them. Our case is Maryland Registration and Desclosure and Michigan Franchise Law, our UFOC and all of the documents to prove all of it. Just trya and dispute the disclosure of the first cafe being offered in 1985. Testimony from Joanne Shaw confirmed it was first offered in 1997. The failure to disclose required third party contracts with on going fees, required vendors, lying about how many cafes have opened and closed, a million dollars missing from The Marketing Fund, lying about not making money on the junk we were all sold, the list goes on and on. DO YOU THINK THAT MAYBE THESE PEOPLE HAVE A DISCLOSURE PROBLEM? Then there is the arbitrator who over rules a State Regulator. What knid of idiot are you? You need to do some Due Diligence on this case because you are really sooking like someone who services would be a killer as opposed to bing a life saver. BY THE WAY WE CONTINUE TO FIGHT BECAUSE THESE PEOPLE TOOK OUR MONEY BASED ON FRAUD AND WE WANT IT BACK
WE CONTINUE TO FIGHT BECAUSE A GRAVE INJUSTICE HAS BEEN DONE
WE CONTINUE TO FRIGHT BECAUSE WE ARE RIGHT
WE CONTINUE TO FIGHT BECAUSE DOES NOT LOOK GOOD
WE CONTINUE TO FIGHT BECAUSE CB FRANCHISES ARE STILL BEING SOLD
WE CONTINUE TO FIGHT BECAUSE WE REFUSE TO BE SILENCED
WE CONTINUE TO FIGHT BECAUSE CHANGE HAS TO START SOME WHERE
WE CONTINUE TO FIGHT BECASUSE THIS INDUSTRY THRIVES ON THOSE WHO DO NOT FIGHT
WE CONTINUE TO FIGHT BECAUSE EVERY TIME SOME ONE ELSE JOINS THIS FIGHT WE BECOME LOUDER AND GUESS WHAT WE ARE BEING HEARD
UFOC doesn't include ESSENTIAL INFORMATION CB
There is no doubt that Coffee Beanery sold Deborah and Richard a pig in a poke. This was common law fraud to withhold the risk information of the investment from these buyers who were dealing with Coffee Beanery in good faith.
All the thieves who condone Coffee Beanery and try to put you down don't want any disclosure of the risk of franchise investments because it will make it harder for them to steal.
Carry on Richard and Deborah and have faith that the truth will "out"!
It Started OK
There is a difference between alternative and mandatory
Kitty Cat Cadavers and Brains...
There are unconfirmed reports of Kitty Cat cadavers that are rising from the dead and eating the brains of their former franchisee owners. We believe that a prominent franchise law firm in Chicago with a practice area in agro-biotechnology or "Frankenfood" is somehow involved with kitten pandemic. Film at 11!
Huh?
I dont get it. What does this have to do with franchising?
LORD GIVE ME STRENGTH
I would love to post a response to Dale's blurb, but Don would have to throw me out of here if I did. You all know that lawyers and snakes have some things in common. I am certain that the snake who talked Eve into eating the apple and sharing it with Adam was the first lawyer - don't you?
But Dale's remark about snakes eating young felines brought back a lot of personal intimate memories that I would share with y'all. except that I am sure y'all would whine that it was just too risque for y'alls' tender sensibilities if I did.
Richard Solomon
www.FranchiseRemedies.com
CB Due Diligence
I read your attorney's brief to vacate the arbitration award, and this has been bugging me since I read it. In the brief it states:
"Mr. Welshans and Ms. Williams conducted due diligence utilizing the UFOC between June 11 and June 16, 2003, calling and visiting several Coffee Beanery franchises in the area of their proposed store and reviewing the UFOC themselves and with their accountant and lawyer. They did not know of any cafes and were not looking at cafes as they were interested in a traditional coffee shop selling coffee and other beverages and pastries and other dessert items. "
You signed your franchise agreement on the June 17th at your discovery day. If you weren't interested in buying the cafe concept, then why did you sign the franchise agreement on the 17th and not do more due diligence on the cafes? Also, did you do your due diligence based on just a coffee shop and not a cafe?
I'm just curious.
What kind of idiot am I you ask? - One that didn't waste $100K
Your case is likely not a winner and your attorney had a duty to tell you that you had a tough row to hoe. If Rifkin thought you had as strong a case as you describe then he would have taken the case on contigency!
Deborah and Richard - Good Faith - How do you know?
You have no idea whatever as to whether or not Deborah and Richard acted in good faith or are acting in good faith now.
Good Lawyers in Chicago ----Kittycats too!
The Windy City is no doubt full of lots of good and bad attorneys who work within the status quo of franchising and the law to do the best for their clients under the present state of the law. I'm sure that there are lots of shysters who don't mind producing cadaver franchisees for the franchisors who can feed off of the flesh of their own first-generation franchisees to churn their way to profits.
I just called Mr. Caruso because I read about him on the Internet and I liked the stuff he wrote and I think he gave me good advice! He recently wrote an article about franchising and Class Actions that I found to be honest under the status quo of the law, and I think he gave me very good advice under the circumstances and didn't even charge me for the conversation. I offered to pay, of course, to keep our conversation confidential but he said it would be confidential and refused payment. He even offered to "expert witness" if we needed him but told me that it would be too expensive for US for HIM to come to my home town. I liked him.