Beyond my understanding

Four inches (10 cm?), first snowfall today.

Winterized my family dentist’s home lawn sprinkler system yesterday. I’ve always been lucky to know brilliant, strong and beautiful women. I remember: wisdom teeth gone, no pain medication but without a single complaint.

I once told Richard Solomon that I admired his ability to work in franchising for +35 years (135?) while still maintaining the veneer of sanity. Oiling that capital re-allocation machine, 60 hours a week, week-in, week-out with the full knowledge of the human and family costs that are only heard across the kitchen table.

I understand why Ontario politicians have been avoiding the doing what’s right in the franchise file for almost 40 years. I understand why everyone hates being associated with the message I bring and/or me. I understand things take time.

But some days, I have to just shut out the psychopathology: delete some evil. When I retrieve and read my paper, sometimes others have to pinch-hit.

2 Responses to Beyond my understanding

  1. Carol Cross says:

    At least the Ontario politicians have done something and their conscience must sting and they are frightening the other provinces. You have been a THORN in their side —hard to ignore! You just won’t shut up and go away — no matter the sanctions against your activism!!
    But look over here in the US and you see that the Bills that were offered to the Congress which would have given some relief to prospective and current franchisees were easily defeated and NOTHING was even attempted. The Bills were killed in Committee because of the alliance of the IFA and the Government and the Banking Industry. Everyone wears blinders in order not to reduce the pool of innocent investors whose life savings need to be captured to sustain the top of the financial pyramids of franchising.
    I still wonder if the US Congress is IGNORANT or COMPLICIT in setting up veterans and their families to be fleeced by respectable looking franchisors who intend to survive on the life savings of VETS and their families who can qualify for SBA loans to buy unprofitable and unviable franchises.
    The US Bar and the Canadian and the Australian Bar all support the current urgly status quo of inadequate disclosure of risk because it serves their interests! This is a “world” problem.

    As Richard Solomon says in so many different ways, those who have the money and the influence in representative democratic Republics to buy the law – do buy the law. He indicates that it can’t be otherwise and this doesn’t bother him. A lawyer’s allegiance is to the law –which may have nothing to do with the concept of “justice.” Perspective!!!!

    Keep the faith — Continue your march!


  2. Carol Cross says:

    Talk about buying politicians and the law! The attorneys, of course, make it all possible because it is they who know how to bend and massage the law to achieve the goals of the special interests who profit from franchising and who have the money and influence to buy rules and regulations from the legislature and the executive.
    Interesting that under US Disclosure law, the attorneys prepare full-proof contracts and the mandated FDD’s that contain detailed information about risk factors associated with buying the franchise AND the mandated business format/plan BUT they neglect to provide ANY information as to how many of their “founding” franchisees actually survive these risk factors and really earn profits! or how many have NO ROI at all and fail! Very misleading, of course, because Item 20 appears to hide churning and indicates (often falsely)to the new buyer that the majority of “founding” franchisees have survived the risk factors spelled out in the Franchise Disclosure Document.
    Obviously, the FTC Rule and the State FDD’s were designed by attorneys to permit the omission of disclosure of this vitally material information to the new buyers of franchises. Obviously this invites fraud and tort — if fraud and tort is the act of knowingly selling franchises that fail at an alarming rate and are unprofitable and NOT telling the prospective buyer about the failure rate before the deal is closed.
    In the Peaberry Coffee Litigation and Remand to the Denver District Court, the District Court Judge had indicated that the franchisees wouldn’t have purchased the franchise if they had understood that it had never operated as a successful business BUT he still gave the victory to the franchisor because of the existing case law.
    Existing case law surrounding franchising hasn’t touched on “silent fraud” or determined whether or not the attorneys who prepare the disclosure documents have any duty under the law to protect their clients from the silent fraud of failure to disclose MATERIAL and negative existing facts to new buyers. Or, are the attorneys, like the regulators and the Congress, given deniability as to the failure or success rate because of the ineffective, inadequate, and disdhonest FTC Rule governing the sale of franchises to the public.


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: