The public Role of Tier 2 franchise attorneys

In my post On the Nature of Tyranny, I tried to present Northrop Frye‘s analysis of William Blake.Blake saw the fundamental struggle on earth between two opposing forces:

  1. champions of tyranny (not the apparent nasties but those that profit from defending them; those that write for power; sophists) and
  2. visionaries (the “enlightened ones” lol).

Franchise bar: In advanced franchising cultures, there are two archetypal fixers: one for the franchisors and ditto for franchisees.

Everyone else in the franchise bar is lower status individual, dependent on these two alpha males and the evolution of the bar’s sociology: norms, history, rewards/punishments, career advancements, access to law makers/regulators, referrals, who is “us” and who is “them”,  etc.

One role of the Tier 2 attorneys is to engage in battles on behalf of the pack when here is a threat.

Their out-of-character behavior explains a lot about a system that created, empowers and defends tyrants.

One Response to The public Role of Tier 2 franchise attorneys

  1. Carol Cross says:

    You know that I agree that it is the attorneys (the BAR) who drive the get-away cars in the scheme of things in franchising and the law. The “product” in legal terms produced by this hybrid legal model of doing business is great and the attorneys for both franchisors and franchisees are satisfied with the status quo of the law and the sale of franchises to the public and want no changes in the law of disclolsure of risk that will interfer with the amount of product produced for attorneys on both sides of the fence.

    The game is played by the rules written by the Bar whose attorneys are always paid, no matter what the outcome, and the law has been influenced as well by the majority interests who lobby the Congress. The UNINFORMED FRANCHISEES who feel that they were misled and misinformed in the sales process generally have NO recourse in the courts because they haved signed (in good faith) contracts that protect the franchisors from all of their mis- representations made outside of the franchise contract and the mandated government disclosure procedure..

    The dishonesty of the Bar in NOT identifying the flaw in the regulation of the sale of retail franchises to the general public either to the courts or the prospective buyers of franchises is, of course, protected by the status quo of the majority interests who have influenced franchise case law. The flaw, of course, is the failure of regulators to require franchisors to disclose the material risk of the investment in a particular franchise in terms of disclosure of historical UNIT performance statistics of the system to new buyers of the franchise.

    The “urine” consequences in franchising are generally confined to franchisees who stand on the bottom of the financial pyramid and who cant avoid the results of gravity on the spray. It is not surprising that franchisees who have been pissed on by “the system” and “public policy” are pissed off at the system and the courts who protect the system and public policy!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: