Would it be better to have no legislation? That’s a no-brainer.

EPSON scanner Image

The public hearings that led to the Ontario Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), 2000 started on March 6, 2000.

  1. The first expert witness was Ms. Susan Kezios from the American Franchisee Association (her testimony, above to right).
  2. Mr. John Sotos was the next of the five expert witness (40 in total :: 4 days :: 4 cities) was a Toronto attorney called (his full testimony, left).

Mr. Tony Martin, a politician from Sault Ste. Marie  asked Mr. Sotos a question:

Mr Martin: Would it be better to have no legislation than to put a piece of legislation in that gives people a false sense of security, given some of the statistics?

Mr Sotos: That obviously is a no-brainer. The purpose of legislation is remedial, it’s to correct a problem. If the legislation doesn’t achieve that, then I think it’s misplaced.

“That obviously is a no-brainer.”

  • summum ius summa iniuria –  The more law, the less justice

3 Responses to Would it be better to have no legislation? That’s a no-brainer.

  1. Carol Cross says:

    Interesting to note that the Minister of Industry of the United Kingdon held public hearings as to the wisdom of passing SPECIAL laws governing the sale of franchises to the public.

    She decided against it with the explanation that it would give a false sense of security to the public and especially to the troops who would be returning from the war and looking for a means of earning income! She commented that regulation in the United States by the Federal Government gave franchisees no more protection under the law than UK citizens already had in the system in place in the UK. She indicated that if the banks did their due diligence in making loans that this should be sufficient to prevent wide-spread fraud in the UK.

    Of course, the Minister of Industry of the UK would know nothing about the process of CHURNING failed owners who don’t turn up in any failure statistics made available to the public–would she?



  2. Les Stewart says:


    Thanks for bringing this UK example forward. Do you happen to have any links or her name and when she made those statements?

    I was told by several public servants that franchising is “the most studied and least acted upon” problem in commercial ministries. I was lead to believe that the information coding is intentionally skewed as to distort the magnitude of citizen complaints being recorded by government.



  3. Carol Cross says:

    The hearing was conducted in the UK by Margaret Hodge, Minister of Industry, 22 May 2007, at the request of franchisees who had great losses from their purchases of franchises and who felt they had been cheated by the franchisors.
    I can’t find the article that quoted her comments but it is out there someplace and maybe you can access it or the actual transcript of the public hearing which should be available to the public in the UK.
    Her comments on the “returning troops” struck home with me as I was busy protesting the USA SBA Patriot Express Loan Initiative on Blue Mau Mau and Unhappy Franchise, etc.. as exploitation of our veterans and their families.
    Tonight, I am again sick at my stomach after reading Blue Mau Mau on a proxy engine (I am blocked, you lnow) today. It appears that Representatives in the Congress are cooperating with VET-Fran and the IFA to introduce an Armed Services program to sell franchises to Vets and their families under the guise of helping them to find jobs and employment in franchising, either as workers for franchisees, or as owners of franchises.
    How can naive inexperienced buyers of franchises BEWARE when all the forces of the status quo are employed to hide the risk and to capture their cheap labor and cheap venture capital?
    There is a poster on Blue Mau Mau (Oldsword) who tells the truth and of course you can depend on Richard Solomon to always tell the truth about the rampant fraud in franchising in order to push the business of “due diligence” for himself and other attorneys! He says he offered to provide “due diligence” on franchisees for “nada” to troops returning from Afghanistan and Iraq but the government/private interests turned him down.



Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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: