The case for repealing disclosure laws

September 25, 2010

Any law exists because those most able to compete for it goes to the political process and wins.

This is how the Ontario franchsie law went in 2000. I was there.

Everyone’s interests were served very well, except the powerless: mom-and-pop franchise investors.

Sure a few attorneys were made multi-millionaires (continue to blackball, block and betray sincere advocates), the franchise bar has reached record numbers (God love those disclosure document revisions!) while the 2nd-worst-chumps, the false protagonists (the franchisors) got  a short-term sales bump but their reputation continues to nose dive.

On any legitimate public policy level, the Arthur Wishart Act is a complete and total failure.

But as a way to launder mom-and-pop life savings via dim-witted franchisors?

Priceless to the true champions of tyranny (the franchise bar legal elite).


Can an empire be saved by shaming investors like Ariel Buk?

August 15, 2010

There are costs involved in maintaining investor confidence and commercial relationships. Some people need to learn to “take one for the team”.

Ariel Buk and Sonia Karabin may need to understand that they should cool down, be quiet and go away about losing a $85,000 deposit on a non-existent Ontario, Canada franchise. They and, by extension, the many hundreds of other “failed franchisees” need to be taught their role in this confidence game by the industry stakeholders: take one for the team or risk being shamed.

1. James Daw presents the story in yesterday’s Toronto Star article,  Ice cream dream becomes nightmare about Mr Buk’s experience with Piazza Gelateria and Café. This is shrewd. For example, Mr. Daw opines:

They [husband and wife] should have looked more closely at the business opportunity, and their decision to use mainly borrowed funds after Buk had lost his job.

They should have considered the minimum $300,000 cost of a lawyer to sue for a refund if things went wrong, and the chances of recovering anything from a relatively young numbered company.

2. Robert Cialdini lists authority as one of Six Weapons of Influence. My experience is that attorneys are given a  lot of authority by new Canadians. Many of us see past their pretensions, BS and fear. [Examples of authority.]

Ben Hanuka of Davis Moldaver LLP is quoted as saying:

“Very few mom-and-pop franchisees ever go to that length (of hiring experts to research a franchise opportunity),” says Hanuka. “It sounds too complicated to them.”

All it well with the world the reader is assured. Go back to sleep because these people get what they deserved. The blame lies with:

  1. the anonymous, individual “other” (mildly retarded immigrant scapegoat) deserved what he got (“your success follows from your blind obedience to authority” dogma)  and not that
  2. stakeholders align their self-interest in maintaining a facade of legitimacy: not a fake, or a Potemkin village scheme which has preyed upon identifiable groups, in plain sight,  since at least 1971.

Social Psychology-based Hypothesis: Elite stakeholders deflect systemic wrongdoing by using the largely-internal mechanisms of On Cooling the Mark Out by Erving Goffman (shame-humiliation effect) while using the public’s widespread fallacy of theBelief in a Just World, BJW (Melvin Lerner, retired University of Waterloo, Canada) in the country’s largest daily newspaper.

Every dying empire resorts to displays of public humiliation.

Why were people crucified in Jesus’ time?
Crucifixion was a Roman custom used on the worst malefactors and rebellious slaves. Judea was a tributary to Rome at that time. It is recorded by the Jewish historian Josephus that after the last rebellion of the Jews and the capture and razing of Jerusalem, the countryside was practically denuded of trees the Romans crucified so many. WikiAnswer

Detail: Crucifixion was often performed to terrorize onlookers into submission. Victims were left on display after death as warnings. Crucifixion was usually intended to provide a death that was particularly slow, painful (hence the term excruciating, literally “out of crucifying”), gruesome (hence dissuading against the crimes punishable by it), humiliating, and public, using whatever means were most expedient for that goal. Crucifixion methods varied considerably with location and time period…

While a crucifixion was an execution, it was also a humiliation, by making the condemned as vulnerable as possible. Although artists have depicted the figure on a cross with a loin cloth or a covering of the genitals, writings by Seneca the Younger suggest that victims were crucified completely nude. When the criminal had to urinate or defecate, they had to do so in the open, in view of passers-by, resulting in discomfort and the attraction of insects. Despite its frequent use by the Romans, the horrors of crucifixion did not escape mention by some of their eminent orators. Cicero for example, in a speech that appears to have been an early bid for its abolition,  described crucifixion as “a most cruel and disgusting punishment”, and suggested that “the very mention of the cross should be far removed not only from a Roman citizen’s body, but from his mind, his eyes, his ears.” Wikipedia

Humiliation is the most unpredictable, violent and destructive human emotion. It can result in many types of loss (see Bob “Bhupinder” Baber, WikidFranchise)


So Ontario, Canada is a worldwide franchise industry outcast? Okay then…

August 11, 2010

Peter Dillon of Siskinds LLP is an expert in franchise law and a practicing franchise lawyer.

In this month’s  edition of Canadian Lawyer magazine an article entitled Ontario courts side with franchisees, Mr Dillon is quoted as believing:

…franchise law and its judicial interpretation by the courts of Ontario has created probably the most perilous jurisdiction in the world in which to conduct franchises,”

The Wishart Act and its appeal court justices have created the “most perilous jurisdiction in the world“?

Mr. Dillon is reported as having sent out this warning:

He concludes his memorandum by advising his franchisor clients that the courts have clearly demonstrated they are favouring the franchisees, which therefore “creates a high degree of risk and uncertainty that will put some franchisors out of business and will deter many others from commencing to do business through franchising.”

Taking it further, he’s quoted as having:

…spoken to many U.S.-based franchises “that want nothing to do with Ontario. In an era where franchising plays a large part in our retail economic engine, it’s a shame to have mechanics at work that seem bent on lowering the horsepower or spiking the engine altogether.”

These are not the first unsubstantiated claims made in rejection of even the most tepid legal franchisee protection provisions nor will they be the last.

Just simply the next new article I added to the WikidFranchise collection.


Where is Atticus Finch when you need him?

April 30, 2010

He certainly isn’t practicing franchise law.

Everyone needs delusions to live their lives.

Just don’t project ideals onto your attorney.


Does the Wishart Act belong only to the franchise bar?

March 28, 2010

I went to a terrific franchise law meeting in Toronto.

Met some really smart and charming young lawyers.

Sure there are some dinosaurs around but they just reveal themselves for what they are.

No need to shout or leap about.

Room enough for everybody.


Attorneys steer this Ship of Fools

February 2, 2010

What kind of professional would intentionally provide a creditor’s wife a faulty chair to sit in?

Would you trust that person?

Would you trust his landlord?

If you knew what I know, What would you call them both?

Good answer.


Go ahead and choose your executioner: call a franchise expert

February 2, 2010

Rules of franchise groups:

1. A dead association is worth more than an alive one.

2. The owner of the logo pays someone else if they cannot execute themselves. The hooded one is either the charming outsider or the loud insider.

3. Franchise lawyering insists on a quick kill rather than a future, recurring cash flow/life cycle.

4. As an association executive, you’ll go along with the game or become a defendant.

5. A token truth added, infinitely strengthens the Big Lie.

6. 99.5% of visible U.S. independent franchisee associations are Potemkin villages (valuable to the status quo as franchisee false hope, example: FranchiseeAssociationManagement.com).

7. Leaders act as a doctor would because franchisees are in a type of daydream. Democracy is a noble concept but achievable only when debtors break their chains.

8. There is a narrow path but it requires patience, self-reliance, trust and one franchisee.

Call for a meeting.


Social media breaks predatory franchising model

January 20, 2010

It also breaks the franchise bar’s monopoly. There is no place in pride for a courtroom.

Jerome Facher: [to law students] Now the single greatest liability a lawyer can have is pride.

Pride… Pride has lost more cases than lousy evidence, idiot witnesses and a hanging judge all put together.

There is absolutely no place in a courtroom for pride.

A Civil Action movie


Franchise Propaganda: Choosing to serve power, not Truth

November 20, 2009

Dealing with brand bullies is tough.

Not only do you have to do your own job, you have to try to separate the lies from truth.

The oldest franchisor trick is to divide-and-conquer by:

  1. spreading half-truths,
  2. promising “we’re really sincere this time”  (no…really),
  3. keep the dollars and “give” back pennies of formerly franchisee margin, and
  4. always delay any concession.

Many predatory franchisors do not want to demonstrate that they are deeply affected by competent franchisee association management. And they’ll certainly never give any credit where credit is due.

They act as if franchisees only have strong backs and weak minds and they come out with many new-found We feel your pain messages that are hollow when it comes to $ .

Want to know how Canadian lawyers think of Franchisees?

Franchisees are:

assets that talk back.

This is a direct quote from a published paper from the 2009 Ontario Bar Association franchise law conference in Toronto last October.

Assets that talk back.

Indeed.


In the end, They’ll use your marriage against you

November 3, 2009

JudasJesusChristSuperstarWhatever you’re attached to will be used to your disadvantage in predatory franchising relationships.

Ray makes many excellent points over at Blue MauMau.

One of his greatest insights is this:

your marriage will be used as a way of making you do what “they” want you to do.

In my experience, the attorney you hire to protect your family is simply weak, not evil.

That is their role, their fate.

Their folly.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: