Ontario’s 35,000 lawyers should consider themselves warned.This is not just outstanding peer-to-peer legal advice (which it is: both carrot and stick) but it’s also crucial information for all current Canadian franchise investors.
The benefit of collective franchisee action has never been more justified.
Sterns’ bottom-line advice to lawyers? (especially general attorneys):
The harsh reality is that some franchises have a failure rate as high as or even higher than non-franchised businesses. When the franchised business fails, the results are often catastrophic for the franchisee. The legal advice provided by the reviewing lawyer will come under close scrutiny, particularly if the franchisee misses the rescission window because it was unaware of its rights…
Lawyers should allocate sufficient time and charge a sufficient fee to permit a proper document review and reporting to the client. Otherwise, they should decline the retainer.
Lots of implications for the general and franchise Ontario bar.
But, hey, huge importance for the 40,000 ON investors in a current franchise relationships who are organized. Disclosure requirements are not just for the entering but whenever a material change happens to the relationship (ie. during, at renewal: any time a material or “significant” franchisor decision is made).
Did you get proper disclosure documents the last time your franchisor decided to change the rules in the middle of the game?
These are the business risks I assigned and that appear in the WikiFranchise.org entry:
- Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), 2000, Canada,
- Buying an existing outlet even riskier than from scratch,
- Courts extremely picky about shoddy disclosure practices,
- Disclosure documents are deficient,
- Disclosure document: one, bound and delivered at the same time,
- Disclosure document certificate,
- Disclosure document must disclose all material facts,
- Disclosure document must include third party contracts (suppliers),
- Disclosure documents never given,
- Disclosure documents not given within proper timeframe,
- Duty of care,
- Franchise law being ignored,
- Independent businesses survive longer than franchised ones,
- Independent businesses much higher profit than franchised ones,
- Lawyer alert: advise only prospects with adequate legal due diligence budgets or risk being sued,
- Lawyers being threatened with lawsuits for speaking out,
- Material facts were not disclosed,
- Outstanding advice,
- Professional negligence,
- Refuses to take client,
- Sue the lawyer,
- Unintentional or hidden franchises
This is an important article that I will visit again.