Some state legislators have crafted a bill that would give franchisee's more power over their business (taking that power from the franchise).
The two sides of the argument.....
A franchise-owner has little legal power over running his/her own business. It varies from corporation to corporation but for the most part the corp holds nearly all decision making power over franchises.. One common concern of the various franchise owners seems to be the ability to will or sell the business to an heir. It's often not allowed by the corporation. However, what brought this particular issue to the statehouse was the impending frozen donuts that Dunkin's will supposedly soon be selling from all their stores. One local DD owner refuses to sell donuts that come from a frozen product (seriously, can freezing a dunkin donut can make it any worse??).
The corporation on the other hand is all about consistency and wants to be able to retain the power to set standards that they deem necessary to insure Joe Public that the chocolate-covered donut he consumes in CA tastes every bit as equally horrid as the chocolate-covered donut he might consume in NJ.
Personally I would think a contractual agreement should have all the rules and expectations clearly laid out. Of course, there are always situations that arise that weren't previously agreed upon.
There is little language crafted for the bill yet, so precisely what power it intends to bestow upon the franchisee is unclear.
Should government, even state government intervene, proactively or legislatively, in franchise disputes?
What is the single best use of a frozen dunkin's boston creme donut?