Dissin' Franchisement Follow

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?

No, the Franchise owners knew what they were getting into when they bought in. Running a Franchise means that they have to maintain the image and regulations set down by the parent company in order to keep the name brand recognition that comes with it. The moment they refuse to sell a non-harmful product that will be mass advertised by the company is the moment that they should lose Franchise rights or be penalized in some manner.

The best use for a frozen doughnut is for taking out a cop in an ironic fashion.

My little town is known as a franchise owner's dream. We have 2-3 major franchises and another dozen small franchises based here. (Mmmm Zaxbys.)

That said, I've got to side with the franchisers here. They did all the leg work to set up a franchisee's restaurant, everything from devising the recipes to helping set up the layout of the store. If the franchisee doesn't want the sell the product they agreed to sell, they can always sell the business to someone else who will.

Is the issue with the frozen donuts because he doesn't have a freezer and doesn't have room to put it in, or something?

This is part of the problem, I think, is that they can't sell their business outright.

I think it's more of a quality issue. I'm assuming dunkin donuts are mixed up and fried in-house. I'm sure the mix is a company product, but is a mix versus a product that has been wholey created elsewhere and then frozen and shipped to the shops. I assume it will then get deep-fried at the individual shop. I can't believe they'd just microwave donuts or some such nonsense. So, two things: It's a different product. A frozen donut is not the same as a non-frozen donut. 2. more of the construction of the donut is being done at a factory somewhere, less being done in the retail shop. I'd guess the retailer will be paying more for the product but perhaps less in labor.

Here's my take on the w-hole donut thing: If the franchise owner thinks the frozen donut is a sub-par product that he doesn't want to sell, I can't see why he'd want to retain the dunkin donut name as that name now stands for 'frozen donuts'.

Franchisers should have ultimate control over the product/services sold at franchisee locations, but I'm pretty sure this is a contractual issue, not a legal one. I don't think the federal or any state government has any ******* business regulating this.

And ultimately, if you own a franchise, you most certainly can will/sell the business any time you like, you just can't transfer the franchise license.

I'm not sure either. It seems that there's an unhappy business owner whose buddy, the state legislator, wants to help.

Here's the original story.

I've never really associated franchises with quality products.

To be fair though, if I was representing his district I'd probably find myself doing the same thing. Easily scored political points defending your local business against those evil outsiders.

You've never been to Five Guys then.

Ah, okay. The complaint is from a middle man who is about to be cut out.

I agree, this is why I prefer Krispy Kreme. Not only are they fresh baked, I see the workers picking them off the assembly line with tongs when I order a dozen plain.

Fixed.

When you buy into a franchise, you buy into their entire system. It's not like the rules aren't stated from the get go. Yes, franchises do change the rules as they go, but again, that's written into the contract before you sign it. If you aren't willing to give them a lot of authority over your business, don't purchase the franchise in the first place.

That's not to say franchisees shouldn't speak out against changes, because they should. Many franchises actually have owners boards where changes are discussed before they even come out, so franchisees have a voice. Regardless though, if you don't want to play by the franchises rules, don't and have your franchise revoked.

Agreed, contract is separate from law and the government should keep its nose out.

Enforcing private contracts in courts of law is a disgrace. Great point, Brownduck.