Seal-A-Fridge's Fate Sealed

As the Canadian Courts contemplate the legalities of franchisors overcharging franchisees, it appears Australian courts have already made their decision.  Basing their ruling on "unconscionable conduct towards its franchisees" the courts "found that the conduct amounted to a “unilateral profit gouge”.  The franchisor, Seal-A-Fridge, is a mobile refrigeration seal replacement business.

 "This case sends a strong message to franchisors that they cannot abuse the position of strength that they have in relation to their franchisees in order to make unfair and unreasonable personal gains at the expense of franchisees,” ACCC chairman Graeme Samuel said today. - Dynamic Business

Unfortunately, "The court found that Seal-A-Fridge had no contractual basis for the fee increases."  So, if the contract did allow the gouging of franchisees, would it then have been legal? 

Again, as some here decry "The Nanny State", as long as franchisors can contract in fraudulent behavior, there is no other way for franchisees to be protected from "unconscionable conduct" without government stepping in.

SAF targeted by ACCC

This was a case where the ACCC finally flexed some muscle. But for all the wrong reasons.  This was a political stunt when the ACCC and Minister Emerson were being blasted from every corner of Australia for ignoring rogue franchisor behaviour. They found the little guy franchisor, who admits he blew it, and were prepared to destroy him with a team of 'legal eagles' he could not compete against. But it was all done to protect the sham that is franchising regulation in Australia. This is from Michael Rooney, SAF franchisor; it's long;

On Friday, 4th June, 2010 In the Federal Court in Brisbane Justice Logan made his orders in respect to the test case of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) and Seal-A-Fridge Pty Ltd.  (SAF) The ACCC had alleged that SAF engaged in unconscionable conduct in increasing fees by $25.00 per week (from $50.00 - $75.00)  in 2001 in association with the SAF National Telephone Number and disconnecting  some Franchisees to procure agreement to the increased fees.

Fees for some Franchisees were raised from $75.00 - $100.00 in 2004 and no phones were disconnected but the ACCC alleged this was also unconscionable conduct. Deeds of Variation were put in place in 2004 and Franchisees were given benefits with the $25.00 per week increase. One Franchisee’s term of renewal was increased from 15 – 45 years. No increases had occurred since the 2004 increase other than CPI.

Two Franchisees went to court in regards to the $25.00 per week increase. They stated that they charge $170.00 to reseal an average two-door fridge. The Franchisor stated in its defense submission that the cost to make a fridge seal is around $10.00.

Case law surrounding Unconscionable Conduct is still building and in the past it was held that the threshold for the conduct was so high in respect to Franchising that it only concerned a very narrow group who had actually terminated Franchisees; cases such as ACCC v Simply No –Knead (Franchising) Pty Ltd (2000). However the bar has now been dramatically lowered.

To obtain a declaration for unconscionable conduct in 2001, which was out of the statutory time limits of six years to bring an action. The ACCC Counsel Mr K Dorney QC argued that the “ACCC as a regulator should not be bound by Statue time limits to bring an action because the ACCC was a regulatory authority which brings proceedings in the public interest, which serve to educate the public.” The authority used was the case of ACCC v Eurong Beach Resort Ltd (2005)

With new amendments to Section 51AC of the Trade Practices Act which governs Unconscionable Conduct now in place, which include million dollar fines and criminal charges. It now seems that the ACCC will be able to go out of the statutory time limits to obtain a conviction of unconscionable conduct because it is in the public interest.

In a speech given by the ACCC Chairman, Mr Graeme Samuel on 3rd July, 2007, he stated that … we are changing our focus to take a much more aggressive attitude to pursuing unconscionable conduct and this means pushing to get more matters before the courts. By doing so we will not only test the law, we will firm up a better definition of what constitutes unconscionable conduct thereby providing more guidance of businesses.’

In 2008, the Senate Standing Committee on Economics held an enquiry into “Unconscionable Conduct and the Trade Practices Act.”

At 5.40 of their report  the Committee “recommend that the ACCC pursue targeted investigation andfunding of test cases.”

On the 5th November, 2009, the Commonwealth Government response to the Senate Standing Committee Report was:

“….the Government accepts this recommendation in principle.”

In the recently released report in February, 2010 by the Hon. Dr. Craig Emerson MP Minister for Small Business titled: “Strengthening Statutory Unconscionable Conduct and the Franchising Code of Conduct.” Two cases which were at the time “current litigation” the first is ACCC v  Seal-A-Fridge Pty Ltd and the second is: ACCC v Allphones Retail Pty Ltd & Ors

However in the matter of Allphones the ACCC did not test the law because it settled the action by consent thereby not building on case law. After allegedly taking 12 million from its franchisees Allphones only paid back 3 million in damages.

 It was revealed in the Federal Court on Friday to Justice Logan that the ACCC and SAF had negotiations prior to their trial in October, 2009. Due to the financial limitations of SAF it had agreed to all the ACCC charges with the exception to costs that the ACCC had indicated was around $250,000. The Agreement reached was that SAF would agree albeit reluctantly to unconscionable conduct in respect to the rise of $25.00 per week of the National Phone Number and also to withholding consent of the Transfer of the Franchises. SAF had offered a payment of $7500.00 in respect to costs of the ACCC. This was also rejected by the ACCC so Mr Rooney decided to defend himself against the army of legal eagles that the ACCC had whilst hoping that justice would prevail.

In his judgment Justice Logan found that SAF had not acted unconscionable in respect to the withholding of consent of the Franchise transfers. Justice Logan was told by the Barrister representing SAF Mr Jeremy Sweeney that “The ACCC had been offered more than what they ultimately had won in court at a great expense to SAF.”

On the day of the trial the ACCC abandoned about a third of its case against SAF.

It seems clearly unbalanced to have a test case where The Senate Standing Committee on Economics and the Commonwealth Government both agree that the ACCC should pursue targetedinvestigationand funding of test cases and then the ACCC does not fund both sides of a test case against a little Company that cannot afford to have legal representation during a trial. Clearly in the world of litigation you stand a better chance of winning if your opposition is not on a level playing field.

It is interesting that the ACCC turned its back on Bakers Delight, Kleenmaid, Midas, Lenards Chicken and numerous other big business rorts against its Franchisees to concentrate on a $25.00 issue that was out of the Statute of Limitations.

Clearly there will be no public benefit for SAF and its Franchisees they will just become collateral damage to benefit the Australian community and the ACCC can slap itself on the back for using financial intimidation and heavy handedness to gain a verdict while big business and those with the money continue to fly under the ACCC’s radar.

It’s noteworthy that the ACCC

It’s noteworthy that the ACCC waited to publish this outcome the day before practically every disclosure document in Australia will not be compliant.  New disclosure requirements come into effect today. I didn’t understand the ACCC delay but now I do. The ACCC’s PR machine is looking for crumbs.

Seal-a-Fridge transgressed where its disclosure document was not up to date. But the reality is that this is common in franchising; but usually ignored by the ACCC. SAF is a small fish with a small fish team that didn’t ‘cross some ‘T’s and dot some ‘I’s’.  

If readers bothered to read Nigel's [not Michael .. too early] comments then compare his behaviour to the many systems that churn franchisees and are ignored. Look to the ‘pump and dump’ franchise schemes ignored by the ACCC. Look at his massive $25 and compare that to the $100k rip-off of Cheesecake Shop franchisees and the future decimation of that network. 

Look to the ACCC Authorizations of mandatory purchasing abuse over at Poolwerx and Battery World and throughout franchising in Australia. Look at the intimidation of Australian franchisees that complain of profit gouging and look to the ACCC going back to 2001 to find a culprit. Look at the decimation of Midas Aust. franchisees while the ACCC looked the other way. 

Look with disgust at Lenards Chicken and so many franchisees who were destroyed. Look at Allphones where Hoy Mobile was screwed over and dumped by the ACCC only to see the ACCC later ‘support’ a Class to take away $1M in costs while franchisees received pocket change.  I could go on and on but even the web has its limits.

Look at the ACCC crumbs and put it in perspective.

This decision is not as strong a message

as it may seem (or indeed as it has been touted).

It is primarily based on contractual principles and Oldsword was quite correct in picking up the issue that if the franchise agreement had allowed the increase, then no case would have been sustainable.

It is not a large leap of logic to categorise an increase in fees without any contractual right to do so as being 'unconscionable'.

What is more interesting is what the ACCC did not achieve and the comments from the Judge about the conduct of the matter by the ACCC.

This decision does not open the floodgates for franchisees who claim to be victims of unconscionable conduct (who still cannot afford to take their complaint to Court anyway) and to the extent that it clarifies the case law on statutory unconscionability, it is an incremental improvement at best.

Nigel Rooney's message

Nigel Rooney's message may not be clear. He has not argued that he didn't 'screw up'. He is angry that he was singled out as a 'test case' when it will be argued otherwise if anyone attempts to use this 'test'. He accepts his 'learning curve' to a point but he argues that the ACCC had another agenda in going after him. I will leave the rest for him or for someone else except this was a 50% increase to $75 from $50 ($25). The ACCC mislead by omission in their media release. Two franchisees were affected and complained and the rest claimed benefits from the Deed of Variation they signed.

No, it is a strong message.

It's a strong message that the ACCC will only take on small systems on matters of contractual principle and that's about it.

Funny as thats how most franchisees find the legal system works as well.

It reminds me of a Robin Williams piece about the powers of english policemen. "STOP! or I'll say STOP again!"

Weak as a wet tissue.

All those franchisees who have taken far more serious and substantial breaches of the code to the ACCC and ended up broken are getting a very, very strong message indeed.

That message is that the ACCC wet their pants in fear at the idea of taking on anybody bigger than Mr Nigel Rooney.

I rather feel for Mr Rooney, insofar that this is the second time he has had trouble getting away with behaviour that the bigger franchise systems take for granted.

Seal a fridge is one of the tiny few systems that has been refused a third line forcing exemption. Franchises from bigger, more influential systems have been granted exemptions even when their conduct involved the very same circumstances as seal a fridge or worse.

If I were him i would feel rather persecuted as well.

The message this sends to franchisors is that their contracts must be as ambiguous and open as possible to allow for all eventualities.

But wait,

Most of them already know that and therein lies the problem.

Wake me up when the ACCC actually does something that means anything.

Bad luck Nigel

The confusing part of your problem with the ACCC might have just come to me. If you look at our;

newly revised Code that excitingly added ‘Unilateral Variation’. 

Unilateral changes have to be disclosed from now on and for a period of 3 years from 1 July 2010; Today.  The really tough part is 17A.3  on Disclosure Document requirements.

The circumstances in which the franchise agreement may be varied, unilaterally, by the franchisor in the future.

That’s it. The ACCC have to consider that they cannot penalize anyone anyway unless they bring on heaps in legal costs against an acceptable target. They wanted $250,000 from you and for you that would have been a serious penalty.

But if they take on the bigger conflict budget franchisors they have a problem where such brands will fight way beyond the ACCC v Any Franchisor $ceiling.  Many of those brands would not encounter your problems where they have their own lawyers and hire specialty FCA influence when necessary. They definatley don't have to self-represent.

So Nigel; it’s bad luck for mostly everyone including you and any other franchisor that comes within ACCC spending guidelines.  It isn't fun is it?


Oldsword says - "Again, as some here decry "The Nanny State", as long as franchisors can contract in fraudulent behavior, there is no other way for franchisees to be protected from "unconscionable conduct" without government stepping in."

Alternatively, prospective franchisees could read franchise agreements before signing them and avoid franchises that have unfavorable business terms in favor of franchises that meet their requirements.

Re: Alternatively, WHAT?

Yes, as you have said repeatedly, if the franchisee doesn't figure it out then it is there fault.  So if:  A). it is in the contract and, B). the franchisee doesn't figure it out beforehand it is fine to ruin someone financially .  What a concept.  Mom must be proud.

Most franchisees choose franchising because they lack businessownership experience.  Knowing how each tweaking of the contract can greatly affect the profitability of a system is almost impossible.  Yes, that includes with an attorney which is why so many buy into these systems.  (and, yes, for the thousandth time, I paid thousands for an attorney who claimed they were a "franchise" attorney).

We have on ONE page of BMM Seal-A-Fridge, Quiznos and Super 8 all doing the same thing (is there another franchisor pattern here?).  Worse yet, all franchisors will now contractually obligate franchisees in the future to accept any additional cost - legalizing the financial destruction of any and every franchisee.

This is your "proven, successful business model"?  Well, yes, it is proven to financially ruin franchisees and successfully requires additional fees no one could ever have budgeted for.  Instead of consistently advocating for franchisors who game the system and financially drain franchisees, what  is wrong with requiring the business model to do what it claims it will do? 

Oldsaw seeks government "nanny"

Take some, just wee little bit of responsibility for your choice in a franchise! What did you do wrong?

Government can't protect franchise buyers from their own stupidity.

Hollow argument

So stupid people are legitimate targets … fair game …. acceptable target market.

  • The sting is up to universal standard if it successfully achieves signatures.
  • The stung must take responsibility.

Now can we let Madoff out?

Note: Oldsword a long time ago you promised to take a room with this same oldguest.

Yes, Stupid people will be targets.

Many good franchisers don't want stupid franchisees. Stupid is as stupid does, right? I am no franchiser but if I were I surely wouldn't sell to someone who I felt was incompetent.

Madoff? You love to comparing apples to oranges. A ponzi scheme and the nature of franchising is not even in the same realm. Are there dishonest people in franchising? Absolutely. There are dishonest people everywhere, but put on those rose colored glasses and people believe what they want to believe.

Anyway, Ray, the naive, foolish, stupid, etc will all be targets for dishonest franchisers. Does it make it right? No. But can we pass laws to protect the stupid, naive, reckless at the expense of stifling growth for the smart, sophisticated, diligent investors? No. It can't be done without costing great harm to the overall business climate, development, and growth. T

he government is the biggest sponsor of uneducated, naive franchise investors. Get the government out of the SBA loan business and many of the unsophisticated will not have a chance of success or failure. Some people here want the government to be a gatekeeper, vetting franchises. That's ridiculous and quite frankly is out of the scope of the federal governments defined constitution role. It's more for the states to regulate franchise disclosure and laws anyway.

Socialist may not like our system of government; even Australians. It allows the naive, foolish, reckless, and honest individuals the opportunity to make mistakes and lose it all as well as go into business for themselves and create the next McDonalds. Education iat point of entry is the best solution.

Guest33 is right, you cannot

Guest33 is right, you cannot protect people from their own stupidity nor is the attempt even nobel.   And guest33 is one of the few that understands the endemic culture that the U.S. sucess is predicated upon. 

Please Explane

"endemic culture", "US success is predicated upon'' from your advantage.

Y'all just keep on saying its a new idea

Fuwa, I’ll agree with you on most points but when we get down to the nitty gritty difference between acknowledging most franchisees as being foolish in signing most of today’s franchise agreements and governments doing nothing about those that sell snake oil or those that rig major publicly traded company values I see more sense in some warped justification that the few really wealthy rely on the masses of foolish across all walks.

I agree that pre-investment education is one of the critical elements in dealing with FranWhacks and brands gone bad just as I believe franchisee associations are potentially one of the critical elements in dealing with one of leveraging fairer franchise relationships and attacking supply chain abuse. But where would the economy and the wealthy be if it wasn’t for the foolish?

Franchising has been evolving for many decades and from reports dating 45 to 50 years back the way franchising has evolved mostly is in the size and complexity of contracts to protect a franchisor’s right to do what it likes no matter what the consequences. 

Most of those consequences could not have been predicted by the early franchisors or their lawyers but as franchisees attempted to challenge so came the lawyers to protect the franchisor client and contracts became more and more airtight against anything resembling a good business deal.

Which brings us to the second of the most influential developments in franchising - the marketing ‘educational’ material that disgorges non-stop on anything to support the sales of anything resembling a good franchise business deal when there are apparently so few. They target the foolish.

Yes there will in time be less of the foolish because of sites like BMM but do we seriously see new age education as something that won’t be countered to meet another evolutionary franchising need for at least another decade.

There is so much more franchisor profit per franchise in bad franchising practices than there is in quality franchising business to let transparency go without the challenge of mass misinformation and probably with the intrusion of new marketing technology and strategies.

If you, like myself, are a true believer in democracy calling the shots on who and what should be regulated then at least support the politicians who put democracy and franchising to the test whether it suits your ideology or not.

BTW: Throughout the ages political ideologies have come and gone. Most came with mass support and evolved and went with a healthy, wealthy and wise few and a lack of mass support. Corruption was mentioned more than once or twice.

If one considers what need people have of an external regulation to constrain and steady them, how compulsion, slavery in a higher sense, is the sole and final condition under which the person of weaker will can prosper; then one understands the nature of conviction, "faith."  Johann Gottfried Von Herder - German poet, critic, theologian and philosopher, 1744-1803

And more recently;

It's all very well to run around saying regulation is bad, get the government off our backs, etc. Of course our lives are regulated. When you come to a stop sign, you stop; if you want to go fishing, you get a license; if you want to shoot ducks, you can shoot only three ducks. The alternative is dead bodies at the intersection, no fish, and no ducks. OK.  Molly Ivins - American newspaper columnist, political commentator, humorist and author, 1944 -2007

For those happy doing well I can assure you the rest of us are happy you are doing well as long as its not because you are ripping little folk off in the process. I'm sure you are not but if that were the case I'd want to be regulatin ya butt off.

I don't think we'all like that you'all declares; 'let the bullsiht continue' because it seems unlikely the bullsiht is heading your way. We don't mind that our opinion ain't respected but that feeling, in this instance, is mutual.


Ray and Fuwa;

1.  More information and education doesn't prevent fraud - and the level of outright fraud in franchising is probably no more or less than the level of fraud in general.  (We tend to get overwhelmed at BMM by all the instances of possible fraud.)

2.  More education about franchising is not needed - better internship and sponsorship programs are needed.  You cannot learn about how to be a franchise operator without actually doing it.  Currently, the cost of being wrong is so high that only irrational and highly emotive choices would propel you into franchising.  Not a great filter for getting good operators.

Michael, thats my point

Franchising is a tangled web and there is no lone solution.

One area of even the 'education' soluton often forgotten is the eduation of franchisors and selection benefits, quality induction, quality field staff etc.

And you are right; anyone expecting to learn how to operate a business successfuly in any sector without experience is more than confused. Those who think a franchise sales specialist is going to teach them how to bake bread successfully and opeate a healthy business around it is a sucker to the 'promise'.

Hell; I could even see the value in the zero franchise regulation, legislation and disclosure argument as a means to truly ensure franchise investors do their homework but I suspect it would necessitate franchise marketing to be treated like tobacco marketing to cater to more evolutionary franchise marketing.

Ray, Michael and I have preached internship for many years.

No one listens. If the FranWads worked for a franchisee in a system they want to invest in for 6 months, they woul know what they need to know. Even if they worked for minimum wage, if they kept their eyes open, they would almost never ever get fleeced. What they would save would more than justify the sacrifice.

There is no bertter due diligence than that and it costs nothing. But no matter how long and loud Mike and I preach that as the Untimate Due Diligence, these whining morons will simply not do it. They would rather roll the dice with everything they own and bankrupt themselves on bozo deals. Then they want to be made whole by the government or by some lawyer who does not charge them any money. So they are as stupid at the end as they were at the beginning.

they won't be whole again

But Richard you make my point again. Because franchisees don't listen on internship doesn't mean that it isn't invaluable advice. Of course it is.

There are so many angles and hiden angles to franchising and people don't listen but that doesn't mean we aren't here looking for the Holy Grail of what messages will capture a few brain cells, save people from terrible decisons going in or when they get there, or on their way out.

You and I already have legislation and regulation - all I'm saying is as one part to a reasonable solution, get rid of all that achieves nothing, get creative and put in the basics that will do some good.

But I'm not suggesting that should be considered the endgame or the whole game. In the end I believe franchising can be considerably more profitable for all players in a healthy franchising environment rather than what it has deteriated into. The future of franchising looks to be one of disasters from every angle - avoidable disasters needing a variety of cures.

BTW: Did anyone else notice that Guest33 [wink wink] went back a year to find another of my comments to comment on.

Since advocating crutches for morons is not going to

produce anything effective, if franchise investors don't themselves wise up to the fact that they don't know their arses from hot rocks and resort either to expert assisted due diligence from people who do know what to look for or to internships which cost nothing, then their continued suffering really is no longer an interesting subject.

All you have to do is figure out which franchise you are in lust/love with and - if they really do make money - go get a job at a franchised unit - any job - and keep your eyes and ears open. Tell the franchise owner that you have been displaced by the economy and that you need to work while you figure out what you are going to do with the rest of your life. You can say that you probably don't intend to be some minimum wage person for very long, but that you do have to provide some income for your family while you figure out what to do next.

How bloody hard is that? If you are so bad a salesman that you cannot easily and with relative truthfullness get yourself a "due diligence" job in the system you think you want to risk all you own on, you sure as hell aint gonna make it in any real world sense as a business owner.

In the six months you spend in the DD job you ought to be able to befriend the owner into sharing some real truths with you and pointing you in a worthwhile direction (if I had known then what I know now I would have done someting else) or similar.

How bloody hard is

How bloody hard is that?

I'm yet to see much of what is advocated for effective due diligence as 'hard' and that is the most frustrating part of it all. Most advice on pre-investment due diligence and guidelines to minimize a disaster once due diligence has been screwed up tends to rely on common sense and an intelligent effort given the size of the risk.

The risk! They don't get the size of the risk? Thank the Lord that the whinners come to share their first hand hindsight.. 

Ray, you demonize franchisers and coddle the egos of the

unsuccessful. You regularly compare franchising to a Ponzi scheme. Do you even know what a Ponzi scheme is? (money in to pay money out) Then you proceed to demonize franchising and paint franchisees like Irwin Barkin as these poor innocent souls who were robbed of their liberty. HOGWASH. Irwin was led by greed, blinded by ego, and served by Karma. He probably got what he deserved. Are these are the role models here? If so we are all in trouble. It's not so bad that there are whiners here. What's bad is the crap solutions these whiners propose, which is rooted in their inability to take an honest introspective analysis and actually learn something about THEMSELVES, and why should they here on BMM. They are shouting in an echo chamber of ego coddling socialists, crying "the big bad wolf!" I guess stupid is really is as stupid does.

Keep Wanking Ray

Borradale Wrote: "BTW: Did anyone else notice that Guest33 [wink wink] went back a year to find another of my comments to comment on."

Well Ray, it's never to late to call a ego coddling elitist socialists an ego coddling elitist socialists when you see them. Isn't redaction wonderful? [wank wank]

You and others are advocating for a nanny state to protect the stupid, careless, negligent, ill prepared, and inexperienced. Sure some of em are honest too; even Christians who took it upon themselves to forgo real diligence and get their business decisions from a higher authority.

These good religious, caring, careless, negligent, ill prepared, inexperienced, and even stupid people want government to write rules to protect them; even stifle the small business innovation percolator; all for the noble act of protecting people from their own carelessness, negligence, ill preparedness, and inexperience, and even stupidity. Good luck with that pipe dream. People like Irwin Barkan (failed Duncan Donuts franchisee) and real estate developer harassed his tenants into giving away their business to him all so he could build a Brand (Duncan Donuts) which later cost him everything are championed here by the BMM editor.

The socialist and Elitist pimps prostitute the good religious, caring, careless, negligent, ill prepared, inexperienced, and even stupid people, telling us we need Guberment to protect these people in business to business contracts. We need government to stimulate business activity. What the hell happened to America and personal responsibility, and sense of self responsibility? Should we stop selling guns because people accidentally kill a family member with a handgun they didn't know how to use? Where does the government end and personal responsibility begin? What ever happened to education? Is this what American is becoming?

My Goodness! I am agreeing with Guest 69 - am I nuts?

At some extreme end of his spectrum there is a tiny nut of insight. Imagine that!

Where does the government end

Where does the government end and personal responsibility begin? What ever happened to education? Is this what American is becoming?

Well Ray is an Aussie...Webster is a Canadian, so you have to make allowances when reviewing the threads as this is a multinational forum and their comments naturally reflect their endemic culture.   In large part that is why it is almost pointless to discuss Government regulation with them, except their commentary can easily influence citizen’s of the United States and thus undermine this nation; hence the reason I rebut it (Heck if Obama saw this forum he would be promoting it as the epitome of what would should happen on the Internet).

But you are very correct the U.S. has become weak and effeminate in attitude.  My woman and I have wondered if it is all the soy products or what, but the nation has become a cesspool of whimpering, sniveling, spineless, myopic buffoons and I am being kind in that assessment.  There are three things I remember about my grandfather, one he cheated at cards, two he told me never to show him a report car unless it was all A’s, and three he told me “Don’t ever go on the dole, whatever you  do don’t ever go on the dole”.  

I for one cannot figure out why so many from other countries want to make the U.S. either like their country or like their homeland.  I see no harm in having one or more places in the world that triumph achievement and rugged individualism instead of rewarding failure and collectivism.  

achievement and rugged individualism


'I see no harm in having one or more places in the world that triumph achievement and rugged individualism instead of rewarding failure and collectivism.'

You know something gents; while I and a few others are here advocating that governments needs to do more for franchisee protection it might help to realize that that in the US alone there are well over 700,000 people, many very successful, who probably think the same way.

And there are also many others like me without skin in the game who agree. We only have to look to the Universal Franchising Bill of Rights to see how onerous the direction the selfish franchisees want to take us.

Yes with all that attacks our society’s values it is fair and reasonable security from fraud in investments that is the most to be feared or exaggerated which ever comes first.

in the US alone there are

in the US alone there are well over 700,000 people

That 700,000 people in the U.S. are successful and also do not know the Constitution from a hole in the ground nor understand the blessings of liberty comes as no surprise given the fact the Government runs the socialist indoctrination centers known as public schools.

It is just a shame that these people feel empowered to enslave their countrymen through their choice in public officials. 

The franchising bill of rights is a PIPE DREAM

that will NEVER happen in this universe. Since when should the Guberment decide the terms of private business to business contracts.

Since when should the

Since when should the Guberment decide the terms of private business to business contracts.

Well in the U.S. the Gubermint thinks they have the right to alter the terms of mortgages, and steal the wealth of shareholders and the rights of bondholder (GM)  And the sheeple stand for it and may re-elect the intergenerational-thief-in-chief.

It is almost unbelievable that Lincoln freed the slaves only so a person of presumed African descent could reinstate an institutionalized for of inter-generational slavery in the form of Government servitude.   Hey but let’s not worry about the legacy of debt we leave our children, grand children, and great grandchildren, as long as it is convenient today.  

Holy Hell, I wich you haven't even mentioned GM.

I owned their stock. Now the Union does. I will never buy another GM product again in my life. I am not a Ford man. I'll leave the Chevys to Borradale, Webster, and BMM.

I am with you on this.   I

I am with you on this.   I have owned several GM autos, no more.    Well Ford did not take the bail out money so you might want to reconsider.  You might look good in a Dodge Challenger.  At least it is not one of the limp wristed metro male cars.

I meant to say,

"I am now a ford man." I cancelled my GM Master card as well. What a disgrace GM turned out to be. Government Motors.

Lets not forget the Bill of

Lets not forget the Bill of Rights is an outline for franchisees changing future terms of B2B contracts. Is there a problem with rugged franchisees making a stand?

IS there a problem? Not with me, but it is a PIPE dream.

People who actually believe that something like this would pass, ESPECIALLY on a national level are delusional. It will never happen. NEVER. People can waste their energies how they want to but this will never pass in the U.S. Perhaps in some liberal, socialists leaning states something like this might pass, but never on a National level and anyone who thinks so is not dealing in the real world.

Canadians and Aussies

Fuwa asks: "  I see no harm in having one or more places in the world that triumph achievement and rugged individualism instead of rewarding failure and collectivism."

Maybe, but Fuwa I would bet on the average Canadian or Australian for both self-reliance and community action - our weather is too cold to act without both, and the Australian weather is too hot and nasty for them to act without both traits!

You should get out more often!  Or don't they allow kittens across the border anymore?

You should get out more

You should get out more often!  Or don't they allow kittens across the border anymore?


Michael you are so amusing with your Elitist condecention

First, let me say I married an igloo dweller from Canada. She was a nurse who got tired of waiting tables because the government couldn't afford to hire her and moved to the states. Her mother was diabetic who had to have her leg amputated, but rather than get fit with a prosthesis after surgery she had to wait 6 months IN THE HOSPITAL ROOM before being transferred to a prosthesis center. Why couldn't she wait at home? Because they had a longer waiting list for home health care! She developed a blood clot and DIED in the hospital! She was 58.

My brother in law needed a knee replacement. He waited in for 16 months for surgery and became an addict to prescription medication. He fought a battle of kicking that habit.

My sister in law has a daughter who suffered from depression after her parents divorced. Her grades plummeted. her bahavor worsened. She waited over a year to see a child counselor.

My same sister in law has a young child (4 years old I think) he had developmental issues. The family physician would not refer him to a specialists. She begged him for a referral. He wouldn't do it. Said he was fine. Subsequently the child contracted a staph infection and the clinic doctor noticed he was not at the proper developmental level. He was just diagnosed with Autism.

Pregnant women get government paid leave from their jobs!

You cannot get a damn Dr. Pepper in Canada. They always bring me root beer when I ask for Pepper. WTF!?

I go to Canada (when I have to) and found myself in a debate in a Cigar shop listening to people ridicule me for having to pay for healthcare. Meanwhile they are paying 15% sales tax with their starting income bracket around 24%! Top Meanwhile doctors and nurses are leaving Canada to the free market of America. In order to achieve self reliance many of these professionals had to move to the U.S.

TAKE VI You cannot get a

You cannot get a damn Dr. Pepper in Canada. They always bring me root beer when I ask for Pepper. WTF!?

Okay this is outrageous!   I need to introduce you to this in case you are not aware of it.

Dublin Dr. Pepper: Truly one of the greatest of life's simple pleasures. 


You really should get up to Canada more often. You just don't know what they're missing. I believe that they have a tax on Pussy though.

Pussy is self taxing everywhere.

Actually it is cheaper in Canada.

Pussy is self taxing

Pussy is self taxing everywhere.
Actually it is cheaper in Canada.

Yeah...that it is.  The most expesive real estate on the planet per square inch is located where - LOL!!!


And Mr. Blue MauMau's glasses just fogged up  : )

better internship and

better internship and sponsorship programs are needed.

Agreed!   That is why I keep saying do not go into a business unless you have experience in business and in the industry you are going into.   It amazes me, n the U.S. in what I consider a sports laden culture, that people readily understand that if they want to train fro the 100 yard dash the probably should not spend their time training as a powerlifter but yet when someone wants to open a QSR they think their 20 years of experience as a  COBOL programmer is all the experience they need. 

However I do think education in the form of PSAs could be very, very effective in changing people’s perception of small business opportunities and franchising. 

Richard, Fuwa

agreed on many fronts but Fuwa; 'an illusion of  systematic, state sponsored  fraud that is supposedly foist upon the general populace.'  Allusion?

I'd suggest that around the globe we see daily examples of corruption in governments at all levels and at the top the shift of power away from governments to the financial industry would seem to suggest no allusion.

I would thnk that most countries have a varying makeup of populations and some who challenge getting balance between enjoying the fruits of hard work and enjoying what they percieve is their life's enjoyments.

Ray: If you, like myself,


If you, like myself, are a true believer in democracy calling the shots on who and what should be regulated then at least support the politicians who put democracy and franchising to the test whether it suits your ideology or not.

I’ll try and keep this short and just stick to the basics: I do not believe in Democracies, I believe in Constitutional Republics with a written Constitution that cannot be altered through simple majorities.  This is why I keep on drawing a line between the U.S. and other countries when I post.  It seems to me many of you think the U.S. is a democracy when it is not, nor was it ever intended to be one.  That is why the system is set up to require super majorities in order to amend the Constitution instead of a simple majority.    

I don't think we'all like that you'all declares; 'let the bullsiht continue' because it seems unlikely the bullsiht is heading your way.

You have to be kidding.  I know the ignorant masses, too entrenched with their pop culture, debaucheries, and hedonistic tendencies will do everything they can to rob me of the just earnings of my honest labors.  I harbor no illusion as to the insidious nature of most of my fellow country men and the vermin that infect the rest of the world.    The bullshit as you put it is spewed almost every day in this and other forums, with people who fail to take responsibility for their own decisions out on crusades to impeded the freedom of others simply because they failed in their diligence to protect themselves and their negligence cost their family.  So to exonerate themselves from their own culpability they have to paint for the masses an illusion of  systematic, state sponsored  fraud that is supposedly foist upon the general populace, thus making themselves but  a hapless victim who has suddenly awakened and out to spare others their hardship.  And of course the solution always must be a State sponsored solution because any individual remedy would naturally dissolve the very paint that they spread upon the tapestry they created to shroud their own complicity.


Kindly do not knock debauchery and hedonistic tendencies.

It is possible to join a wasted self indulgence with hard work and productivity, and many of us do it every day. We are also constitutional conservatives, which is why we live in Texas where a man can have all the fun he wants so long as he works his butt off.

Jesus may have turned water into wine, but here in Texas we make cold beer with it.

  Richard writes: Kindly


Richard writes:

Kindly do not knock debauchery and hedonistic tendencies.It is possible to join a wasted self indulgence with hard work and productivity, and many of us do it every day.

My reply:

You are of course correct in your assertion. 

Richard wrote:

We are also constitutional conservatives, which is why we live in Texas where a man can have all the fun he wants so long as he works his butt off.

My reply:

Agreed.  I spent several years in Texas.   Good people.  One of my favorite places for a unique culture of individualism wrapped inside strong social mores is a community outside of Austin called Bastrop.  A fascinating place that pretty much epitomized the American ideal of individualism in a society that enforces its norms at the extremes.

Reply to Guest - Take some responsibility

The comment you make shows you have no idea of how some franchisors can appear to be so nice in the beginning, and the franchise agreement also appears fair and reasonable, however it is all in the interpretations of the words. What one clause can mean to you can be totally turned around by an unconscionable franchisor, many of which also have unconscionable lawyers to aid them in enforcing what they want, even though they know they are borderline with shocking unconscionable behaviour. All can appear honky dory for a while and then whammo! If you don't agree with something they want implemented or believe they are entitled to WATCH OUT you then enter a world of the worst kind of self centred, maniarchal corporate psychopathic behaviour. If you think I'mover the top, just ask a few other franchisees who have been fed to the lions, even though all appeared to be reasonable prior to entering into their agreements. Most franchisees believe, like we did, that the franchisor was quite a nice person who we even invited to a meal because we honestly believed him to be a fair and honest person - NOT!. A better description would be corporate psychopath. Most times, the business itself it good, the franchisor is crap!

What part of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY do you not understand?

Before I go into business with someone or a major business contract costing hundreds of thousands of dollar you can bet your bottom dollar that I make damn sure that I have vetted the officers as well as the franchise agreement, and concept. Any franchise agreement will be reviewed by an attorney who has a background in franchising.

The problem is that too many knuckleheads are getting into franchising who really cannot afford it. There are people out there mortgaging their homes and retirement and not even performing due diligence AND who have no experience in the industry. I guess stupid is as stupid does. Some people look for an easy dollar or just love a sales pitch. Nothing surprises me anymore.

So based on the description

So based on the description above I fail to see the difference between a franchise relationship and marriage.  My point in making this comment is to give you a perspective.   By that I mean if you take out the word franchisor and substitute wife or husband it sounds fairly familiar to many couples I know.