Franchisee organizations need legal standing in civil litigation

It’s only fair to both sides and will stop the continuing carnage.

Independent franchisee associations, IndFA and their consultants should be treated as if they were individuals within a franchise agreement.

  • Franchisors’ corporations get to accumulate over decades information, expertise and capital.
  • Franchisees should have the same advantages by building their own IndFA and contracting with a consulting firm that specializes in leadership development,  conflict resolution and system reform.

Dr. Gillian Hadfield: Amend the Bill to include mechanisms for low cost enforcement of the rights and obligations. Mechanism could include permitting franchise association/class standing in civil litigation; dispute resolution mechanisms including mediation that would operate outside the civil litigation system.  SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS, BILL 33 – Franchise Disclosure Act, 1999, Legislative Assembly of Ontario, Canada, March 31, 2000

Justice, Plaster model created by Walter Allward between 1925 and 1930 and used by stonemasons in the construction of the Vimy Memorial in France. The figure of Justice leans her forehead against a sword hilt.

2 Responses to Franchisee organizations need legal standing in civil litigation

  1. Carol Cross says:

    You know that the Franchisors and the Attorneys would fight giving “legal standing” to the organizations and entities that represent the rights of franchisees. They wouldn’t see any point in being “fair” if it in any manner substracted from their profits.

    How can franchisees, who are isolated as individual businesses by the binding contract, gain enough power to even mediate their concerns with the greater power, the franchisor? Only through the independent franchise association –but, of course, franchisees, UNLIKE EMPLOYEES, cannot apply much pressure as a group to the franchisor without putting pressure on their independently owned franchised businesses –and the franchisors KNOW this.

    This business model itself is unfair and exploitive and is not about “sharing profits” or “fairness” and encourages the use of franchisees as resources to earn profits for the franchisors and their shareholders. Churning and Pumping and Dumping franchise units appears to be hidden from view of the regulators and the courts who by their silence encourage fraud and the exploitation of the franchisees on the bottom of the financial pyramid.

    We have seen that the franchisors already view the franchisee organizations as a threat and many refuse to recognize them or if they recognize them, they don’t accept that they have any “legal” obligation to talk to them.

    The laws surrounding franchising encourage the explolitation of the franchisees and the growth of unsustainable businesses. Bubbles do create cash for the few. Only the franchisees appear to suffer from churning and turning and pumping and dumping and when they lose their businesses and their money, they lose their voice.

    Too bad! So sad! Franchising sucks!

    http://the great franchising


  2. In the US lobbyists moved the government to declare that corporations are people. That was to ensure that corporations were allowed political voice and that politicians collected their Super Pac benefits. In not giving IndFAs legal standing suggests franchisees have no political standing. But we already know that disorganized little folk is a deliberate design, monitored and maintained.


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 )

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: