Want to Sue? Get an independent 2nd opinion

Wise in medicine. Critical in franchise law.

Independent consultants ensure their honesty from pre-trial evaluation (before 1st interview) to settlement.

Any CDN lawyer who can’t work with me is saying a lot about themselves.

Don’t trust in non-verifiable monopoly services.

TEST: How’s your one franchisor: one franchisee relationship working for you?

Advertisements

One Response to Want to Sue? Get an independent 2nd opinion

  1. Carol Cross says:

    What good advice! Les! We humans are born to crave justice and believe in justice –and this makes us vulnerable to “credence good cheaters” who permit clients to walk down dead-end paths because it serves their financial interests and the interests of their law firms. The attorneys on both sides of the issue are always paid –and paid very well, at that! It is rationalized as “we all have to eat.” –even if we have to eat each other!

    Only attorneys like Richard Solomon “honest Richard” might tell you that you are rowing up stream without oars because of 30 years of case law that stacks the deck. Attorneys in the US have been aware for 30 years that there is a serious FLAW in the FTC Rule governing the sale of franchises, but I see no evidence that the Bar ever made any effort to correct the flaw or bring it to the attention of the courts or to the attention of prospective franchisees.

    Attorneys, however, are aware that the courts almost always uphold the onerous, non-bargained contracts and that it is public policy to protect the franchisors and the contracts. Attorneys know that the franchisors make few promises and therefore hardly ever commit breach! They have to know that it is only rarely that franchisees can get redress for the harm that results from “unknowingly” buying unprofitable and high-risk franchises that fail at a high rate for the founding owners. The attorneys are aware that “churning” and “pumping and dumping” have been what has made franchising so durable in world economies. .

    The courts must be aware also that disclosure of the risk of buying a franchise under law and regulation is dishonest and invites fraud and tort that harms innocents! But, the courts don’t make policy, they say, even though they make case law that appears to support “flawed” regulatory policy that promotes and protects the interests of big business and those on the top of the financial pyramids who commit fraud under cover of dishonest and/or inadequate and ineffective regulation of the sale of franchises. The US courts have, in the past, supported bad policy like “slavery” and “child labor” and “strike/union breaking” etc.. under the banner of policy for the “greatest good of the economy” —we shouldn’t be surprised!

    Big corporations use the hybrid business model of franchising to mitigate risk and maximize profits, and to test markets and to avoid the responsibility and the expense and obligation of being employers under state and federal laws. Thought I read where P&G is going to sell car-wash franchises!

    Big Brands can shill their famous names and use the “good will” of the brand to sell franchises to inexperienced and naive prospective franchisees who think they are going to partner with the famous brand!

    Yes! Franchising is one of the most successful “confidence games” in the history of Capitalism. As Les Stewart says “Unsafe at any Brand.” –and good luck on getting a second opinion from one of the “brothers” in the Bar whose loyalty to the Bar and his brothers in the law takes precedence over any truth telling to the franwads on the bottom of the financial pyramids. The Greatest Lies are told in Silence!

    http://thegreatfranchisingrobbery.blogspot.com

    No doubt, Les, as you have indicated in the past, that litigation is most often the second victimization of the franchisee who doesn’t understand that the deck is stacked in the courts against franchisees who have signed non-bargained full-proof contracts that protect the franchisor from charges of fraud in the sale of the franchises. The risk, in terms of success or failure of units within the system, is not disclosed to prospective franchisees BEFORE they agree that they are buying the franchise at 100% risk of failure and before they sign away their legal rights. And, this scenario isn’t fraud?

    Like

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: