Public Forums of Discussion

share franchise news, to prosper and amuse

The Franchise Owner's most trusted news source


Log In / Register | Nov 21, 2017

Franchising Needs Better Government Regulation

Discussion of legislation and political advocacy regarding franchising.

1047 Forum Remarks

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Frankman You Are a Good

Man. This area is the hot bed of every thing being posted on BMM. After all the various articles that are written and posted are in some way connected to the law or lack of.

Franchising is an industry that for years has skated in between the lines of the law.

I'm the one who posted what I had learned about Md. Franchise Law.

The real kicker is the award it self. The admitted violations by the arbitrator gave me pause. I like to disect everything. I found it interesting that R&D were found not credible, yet who produced the documents that were ruled on?

someone I think posted that only a moron would not know that if a Zor has been oredered to offer recision, then a law was broken some where.

Try and clear your minds a little in this one, and forget it involves CB. Rjead the award. Talk about DD, this arbitrator did a brilliant job of admitting CB broke every law out there and then mangaed to hide this in the way the award reads.
Its almost like a puzzle in finding the hidden violations

Ariana may be left but she is often right!

Lots of Republican right-wingers on this site who support legalized stealing and will attack Michael Webster, who always tried to expose the truth of Item 20 and who counts ALL item 20 transfers as failures when he does due diligence for his clients.

The little green men from the IFA apparently got to the regulators and the Congress with green money in one form or another (maybe wrapped in foil) to buy this flawed government regulation that permits franchisors to hide the risk of the investment from new buyers ----and to perpetutuate themselves through the cannabalizing of first-generation franchisees.

Not democratic policy ---fascist policy that leads to corporate domination of government and the law.

Michael is a Canadian and I have found him to be very honest. I think Richard Solomon is very honest also because he published my comments again and I'm sure they won't be missed by any prospective franchisees.
I don't think Paul Steinberg is around today --and Frankman is hard to figure out.

Franchisors can't post opinions?

Are you suggesting franchisors should be silenced. Do you know a good many franchise executives and operations personnel are former franchisees and sometimes current franchisees?

is it possible you don't know as much as you think you know?

One or two crazies on board

I've only noticed one maybe two crazy posters. But they sure do post a lot.

Item 20 Ranter ----- Reasoning?

Are you completely whacked Item 20 Ranter? 

Here is JD's post - "If you don't read the UFOC how is it fraud on the franchisor's part?  You aren't relying on it. 

Oh, and the UFOC has so much more in it than the franchise agreement.  If you don't read the UFOC and understand it, it's your fault, no one elses."

JD's logic makes perfect sense to me.

Why is that someone like you Item 20 who does no research and has limited first hand experience can have such a "perfected" position on franchise pre-sale disclosure, contract law and a global view of franchisee/franchisor relationships?

The Truth Shall Set You Free!

TIF

I thought of the Ranter tonight

as I watched breaking news because a guy that felt he was getting screwed by the local government decided to walk into a city council meeting shooting two cops and killing three councilmen, with the mayor being shot in the head and in critical condition.  Supposedly he walked into the meeting and said 'all I want is justice'.  The shooter was killed as well.

Ranter, your infatuation of the government and UPS screwing you over is bad for you, because it seems to all that you can contribute.  This guy let it fester for 5 years and finally did something because he lost a federal court case against the city, because they kicked him out of council meetings for being disruptive during the meetings.   

It really is time to move on.  Give your experiences, but really your continuing ranting isn't good.  I don't know you other than your ranting, but I'm being serious here and seriously concerned.  

From now on, I'm going to take the stance like Webster and ignore your rants and not respond to anything that you say.   

Tinker's picture

Sorry Honey, I've already raised MY children.

I'm not willing to educate the likes of you.  I don't take 'demands' or 'dares' from silly little children so run along and let the grown-ups talk. 

Rhino Super Center

Tinker's picture

So do Franchisors......so what's your point?

Take a look at Francorp and you'll see the same thing.  No one is arguing that there isn't cheating on BOTH sides.

Rhino Super Center

JD a thoughtful post and right on the money...

Any Item 20 measure of success or faliure would be an elusive and indeterminate formula.

But Tinker and the guest don't want a solution to this nonexistent Item 20 disclosure problem they want to punish franchising and franchisors based on their bad franchising experiences and a consuming need for revenge.

michael webster's picture

Former CFO and ABA Post

Tinker cannot post the ABA forum as she is not a member.

And frankly, the level of informed commentary on the ABA forum is not all representative of the level of collective skill and talent of those lawyers and attorneys who belong to the ABA Franchise Section.

Tinker would not get a more useful response there  -too many CYA concerns for the lawyers and attorneys.

Perhaps both of you should put togther an pro/con article here.

Michael Webster PhD LLB

Misleading Advertising Law

Counter arguments haven't been successful ---have they?

Apparently, there is no case law where franchisors have been found guilty of fraudulent inducement to contract because of violations of the UFOC. Therefore the UFOC and the Rule works to protect franchisors from claims of fraudulent inducement to contract by hiding the risk of the investment because the franchisors are not required by the FTC to disclose the past and present performance statistics on a unit basis to reveal the success or failure of the first-owners of the franchises to new buyers of the franchise.

The acknowledgement and reliance clauses in the franchise contract appear always to be upheld by the courts.

'Tis a stacked deck!

The rant is so good I had to see it again...please sir post more

So tasty!

Lots of Republican right-wingers on this site who support legalized stealing and will attack Michael Webster, who always tried to expose the truth of Item 20 and who counts ALL item 20 transfers as failures when he does due diligence for his clients.

The little green men from the IFA apparently got to the regulators and the Congress with green money in one form or another (maybe wrapped in foil) to buy this flawed government regulation that permits franchisors to hide the risk of the investment from new buyers ----and to perpetutuate themselves through the cannabalizing of first-generation franchisees.

Not democratic policy ---fascist policy that leads to corporate domination of government and the law.

Michael is a Canadian and I have found him to be very honest. I think Richard Solomon is very honest also because he published my comments again and I'm sure they won't be missed by any prospective franchisees.
I don't think Paul Steinberg is around today --and Frankman is hard to figure out.

I don't think all your ideas are crap

I've read many of your posts and they are partisan but always thoughtful unlike the whacked out guest contributor on this forum.

Bob Frankman's picture

Prolific

They are prolific writers. I'll grant you that.

And yet, of all the forums in Blue MauMau that I could be participating in, here I am in the Government Regulation, Political Activism forum. How crazy is that?

I know that Zors cheat!

We don't need no stinking zors.

I'm not your "honey" or a "child"

I'm serious about franchising issues. You on the other hand are an ex-Meineke franchisee with an axe to grind that makes statements you can't back up. Put up or shut up!

P.S. Not confident enough to post on ABA Forum on Franchising?

JD I was going to make light of your post however...

I cannot. The Item 20 Ranter has issues that cannot be resolved on an internet forum on franchising.  

The Truth Shall Set You Free!

TIF

Francorp NOT a franchisor, honey...

Francorp provides services to franchisors NOT franchisees and if they hurt any clients they were franchisors that suffered.

My point is that franchisee accounting practices are too woefully inadequate in order to show success or failure in transfers listed in Item 20.

Tinker, again I advise that you know your subject matter before making definitive statements.

P.S. Not confident enough to post on ABA Forum on Franchising?

FranSynergy's picture

Glass Half-Full

JD:  Nice Post, right on!

IF "The Glass Is Half-Full" is hanging around in these waters, please shot me an email.  Your Bluemaumau mail is turned off. 

Believe & Succeed,
Dale
FranSynergy, Inc.
Synergizing Franchising!
www.fransynergy.com

Without standards Item 20 Success/Fail cannot be calculated

I've stated all there is to say at this point. Tinker cannot demonstrate standards with a reasonable, reliable or even approximate basis for including Success/Failure in Item 20. Besides this whole pile of hores pucky is from the guest person that wants complete government regulation of franchising because he failed in his franchise and Tinker hates the "evil" people at Meineke for doing wrong by her.

Frankly I am a little tired of these two useless posters that drive reasonable people away from what could be a useful forum. So I say to Tinker and her little friend please go start your own IHATEFRANCHISING.com site and have at it, but please leave the rest of us out it.

And a note to you MR. BLUE MAUMAU your site has been hijacked by these two malcontents and they are boring the other 25 people that visit this site. So if you want this site to be a success you NEED to CLEAN UP your ACT and manage this chat-room.

Blue Maumau can kiss my behind you loser

You don't like my carefully written post because it disagrees with you so you delete it even though it meets the standards Blue Maumau set, well too frigging bad. You are certainly arrogant!

Oh and here it is again!

"I've stated all there is to say at this point. Tinker cannot demonstrate standards with a reasonable, reliable or even approximate basis for including Success/Failure in Item 20. Besides this whole pile of hores pucky is from the guest person that wants complete government regulation of franchising because he failed in his franchise and Tinker hates the "evil" people at Meineke for doing wrong by her.

Frankly I am a little tired of these two useless posters that drive reasonable people away from what could be a useful forum. So I say to Tinker and her little friend please go start your own IHATEFRANCHISING.com site and have at it, but please leave the rest of us out it."

And a note to you MR. BLUE MAUMAU your site has been hijacked by these two malcontents and they are boring the other 25 people that visit this site. So if you want this site to be a success you NEED to CLEAN UP your ACT and manage this chat-room.

Paul Steinberg's picture

ABA FoF bias

Ah, one of the BlueMauMau perennials...

The ABA Forum on Franchising has an annual meeting in October, and the Forum leaders tend to seek out opposing views. For some years, they have shied from controversy; I do think they tend to confuse "civility" with an aversion to controversy, but the Forum made that decision some years ago, and in retrospect it was probably the right path.

The Forum ListServ does tend to be pro-zor, but the old days when the ListServ was a place for controversy are long gone. For the most part, ListServ tends to deal with non-controversial technical matters and attorneys seeking referrals. You can subscribe to the feeds even if you are not a member, but you would find them quite boring nowadays.

And for the record (once again) the opposition to the relationship legislation back in the '90s was not from the Forum on Franchising, but rather from the Section on Antitrust. Even at the height of the debate, the Forum tried to remain a neutral place for discussion of franchise law.

I am hardly a fan of the Forum, but I am a fan of factual accuracy.

Disclosure note: I stopped posting on the ListServ after I had a posting regarding Sona and was informed by the ListServ moderator (who happened to be counsel for UPS Stores) that I was "disparaging" a franchisor. For the record, I don't hold this to be any great conspiracy--simply a reflection of the size of the franchise bar--but for those Jim Amos buffs out there...

RichardSolomon's picture

NAH

Frankman is right. The more I think about what he said, the more it makes sense. 

Richard Solomon
www.FranchiseRemedies.com

Don't Need

You made a typo. I'll correct it for you.

I know that doors bleat! We don't need no stinking doors.

TIF

And just to add to the story, I turned on the news this morning and the shooter's family is justifying it. 

Tinker's picture

I didn't say they WERE a franchisor

However, as you pointed out, they work FOR the franchisor and much like the example YOU provided, he cheated on his TAXES................which was my point. 

However, given you inability and/or choice to comprehend the simpliest of details, I'm going to make the choice to put your silly rants into perspective and ignore your pathetic taunts.

With that in mind, this will be my last response to you Honey, so feel free to take the last word on the subject as it means more to you than me.

Rhino Super Center

Without standards Item 20 Success/Fail cannot be calculated

I've stated all there is to say at this point. Tinker cannot demonstrate standards with a reasonable, reliable or even approximate basis for including Success/Failure in Item 20. Besides this whole pile of hores pucky is from the guest person that wants complete government regulation of franchising because he failed in his franchise and Tinker hates the "evil" people at Meineke for doing wrong by her.

Frankly I am a little tired of these two useless posters that drive reasonable people away from what could be a useful forum. So I say to Tinker and her little friend please go start your own IHATEFRANCHISING.com site and have at it, but please leave the rest of us out it.

And a note to you MR. BLUE MAUMAU your site has been hijacked by these two malcontents and they are boring the other 25 people that visit this site. So if you want this site to be a success you NEED to CLEAN UP your ACT and manage this chat-room.

Mr. Blue MauMau's picture

This is the Place!

This forum on government regulations is indeed the place to discuss franchise regulation.

Keep the dialog civil, ladies and gents. If this subject matter burns you up, I would suggest staying out of the heat of this controversial forum.

Our more mellow franchipedia could use beefing up in entries related to the history of franchising. Anyone want to tackle A&W or some of the early franchisors and the business models that they pioneered? Go here.

Mr. Blue MauMau

ABA Bias -----ABA a Force for Good?

The ABA could be a force force to work for the "public good" but they are divided within themselves and exist just to rubber stamp government policy and to socialize with one another, and influence what is "good" for them. They hardly ever speak as one body any more ----probably because they can't agree as one body on any of the important social issues. But, maybe this is good?
The Corporation Attorneys against the Trial Attorneys ---those attorneys who champion corporate rights at the expense of individual rights ---the attorneys who champion individual rights and make the corporations pay ---the pro-Franchisor Attorneys and the pro-Zee attorneys ---those attorneys in academics in the Universities who turn young idealists out into the real world of pragmatic law and pragmatic courts.

Of course, Paul, attorneys mustn't disparage Franchisors with any truth that will interfer with their profits, The Sona matter is a good example of how the IFA spokespeople get out there right away to spin the facts in their favor. The ABA would be no different! All attorneys pay the same membership fees or dues but I'm sure those who represent the really wealthy law firms call the shots on policy within the ABA and protect the public policy upon which they have exerted an important influence.

As for Jim Amos, he was associated with MBE, ICBY, and Sona and if we are "known" by the friends we keep, we should be "known" by the lousy franchises we sell and warned by the "smoke" that rises from the ashes that are so often "settled" and swept from view.

I know you don't believe in conspiracies but I do and I believe there is a conspiracy to hide the true and real rate of failure of franchises from the public. I believe that those who join the conspiracy don't think of it as a conspiracy because it is public policy supported at the highest levels of government for the "public good." Strange how the "public good" as defined by Congress and our laws does so much good for the really big corporations and their profits. The predators are given blank checks by government as witnessed by the stories in our newspapers every day.

This situation is tragic.

I don't know what else to say about it.

Regarding the Item 20 Ranter; if he is true to form he will go into the shadows for awhile and return once he thinks we have forgotten about his hijinks or he will create an avatar like he did with "Carman". Or I could be wrong and the Ranter will post away anyway.

In any event his peculiar positions and distinctive writing style will betray his identity as the Item 20 Ranter. 

What the Item 20 Ranter doesn't understand is that he is selfishly dominating BMM and disrupting reasoned and rational discussions. And I say shame on him! 

The Truth Shall Set You Free!

TIF

???Tinker Posts???

What?

P.S. Not confident enough to post on ABA Forum on Franchising?

ABA Forum on Franchising ---Tinker Posts---Franchise Failure

All this noise and smoke to obscure the fact that there is a conspiracy, protected by public policy, to hide the failure rate of first-generation franchisees, who finance and build the franchised units and often lose everything, from the public and from the government.

All this noise and smoke to alweays change the subject is to obscure the truth through "busy" posts that indicate that the government and the franchisors can't possibly know and disclose the failure rate of the franchised business plans that they sell to the public.

Of course, the ABA does what is in its best interests and it joins the conspiracy to hide the failure rate of franchised business plans from the public and the government, as well. The status quo of franchising is good for attorneys and if public policy is good for their business, so be it!

Item 20 IS A SMOKESCREEN to obscure the failure rate of the franchised business plan, and to provide the appearance of disclosing the risks to the public. Many attorneys, Michael Seid, IFA, for one, have said in so many words that Item 20 statistics are confusing and csn be ignored but that the Item 20 references are very important in determining the risks and rewards of franchising. Our attorneys on Blue Mau Mau, Steinberg and Webster, and lately Richard Solomon, are proud of their integrity and don't defend Item 20 references in this manner.

The ABA will meet in October and talk about all of this over drinks and a swim and some good laughs at those who would try to expose or reveal the truth about the real and true failure rate of franchised business plans. The Franchisors will be there, and of course The IFA and some of the judges will probably be there as well. AFFD and the AFD will send representatives as well. There may even be some of our elected officials in attendance. This is the way public policy is determined and established in our democracy

The Business Press has tried to expose the high risk of failure to the public short of calling it a conspiracy. One of the best articles was written by Anne Fisher, Fortune Small Business, CNNMoney.com, January 19, 2006. Anne Fisher actually discusses how franchisors obscure the failure rates of the franchisees in their networks. This article, of course, doesn't get into government regulation of franchising or public policy concerning franchising.

My country, right or wrong, but I would rather my country be right and wash their hands and regulate franchising at least at well as securities are regulated by the SEC on behalf of the American public. I haven't enjoyed my ephiphany!

Government Regulation is Tragic ---True Violence

If I can selfishly dominate BMM and only one or two people look at the truth of what I am saying, this is enough for me.

If what I am saying about Item 20 is not correct, get out here and defend it, JD and TIF. Obviously, both of you make your living in and around franchising and don't want your subsidy to be taken away from you.

Anything I have indicated about government regulation has been indicated to the FTC by insiders in franchising like Robert Purvin of the AAFD. Look up his public comments on Google!

The purpose of the FTC Rule as stated in the Rule is not being accomplished, either because of ignorance or incompetency of the FTC, or because of a DEAL.

Why don't you two worry about the VIOLENCE and BRUTALITY of the exploitation of innocence instead of trying to discredit me with the morning news? Why don't you two go and read Ten Good Reasons Not to Buy a Franchise, by NOLO, as published by Forbes,Com. ----and then try to find even three good reasons to buy a franchise and post it for all to read.

Are you off your rocker...

"Of course, the ABA does what is in its best interests and it joins the conspiracy to hide the failure rate of franchised business plans from the public and the government, as well. The status quo of franchising is good for attorneys and if public policy is good for their business, so be it!"

Your above quote is out of this world crazy! For the aforementioned statement to be true it requires the American Bar Association to paticipate in a conspiracy so large and inconceivable that it would make Watergate look like a little white lie.

You do know that attorneys that ONLY represent franchisees are part of the ABA and post of the ABA Forum on Franchising?

You sir are paranoid and they are out to get you! I am sending the guys with white coats and I gave them your description...pointy head, clown feet, red rubber nose and aluminum foil headgear to protect you from government mind reading technology. It's only fair to give you a headstart...ready, set, go...

SEC Regulation

Okay Guest, you've always stated that the franchising industry should be regulated like the SEC.  So, how are they going to do this?  I've been thinking of this and I have my ideas, unfortunately, I don't have the hour to type it all in a blog right now, but I will here in the next couple of days. 

You do realize that regulating like the SEC would also put additional responsibilities and cost on the franchisees to, don't you?  Do you think franchisors can determine whether their system is viable, without getting audited financial statements from the franchisees using a standard accounting system?

Truth in Franchising will require truth and openness from the franchisees as well, and some of them won't want to do it.   

Item 20 Ranter Riddle me this...

Why haven't Webster, Steinberg, Solomon, Purvin fully supported your positions when they are all primarily on the franchisee representation side of the equation?

You can't even raise a moron army of more than two people to champion your FTC/SBA/IFA/ABA conspiracy theory.

Even if you don't realize it you are being rude and controlling in dominating the discussion with the same old tired premise. Maybe you should try your luck at franchise-chat.com or franchisepundit.com?

You even exhaust the patience of the folks that may sympathize with you.

The Truth Shall Set You Free!

TIF

Correction for ranter;

I know I said I wouldn't respond to the ranter any more, but when i see inacccurate statements about me, I'll correct them:

Ranter states: 

'If what I am saying about Item 20 is not correct, get out here and defend it, JD and TIF. Obviously, both of you make your living in and around franchising and don't want your subsidy to be taken away from you. '

I don't make any money off of franchising.  Been out of franchising for 2 years, probably will never own a franchise nor work for another zor.

 

Thank you for repeating the truth again! ABA Conspiracy

Thanks for quoting the truth again. I identify the cooperation of the ABA with those who make public policy as a "conspiracy" to make my point.

You understand, of course, that the ABA often is an important part of supporting public policy that is promulgasted by laws passed in the Congress and the legislatures, and administered by the agencies of the Executive and our judicial branch of government.

The ABA, of course, doesn't consider their cooperation with The Congress and the Executive and the State Legislatures to be a criminal conspiracy. They cooperate with the "powers that be" for "the public good" as defined by our elected officials who passs the laws and the rules under which we live and conduct business in this country.

Of course I know that there are attorneys that ONLY represent franchisees and who are members of the ABA Forum and I* don't fault them. They do the best they can, within the system, for their clients and are powerless to change public policy that is suppoeted at the highest levels of government and under our laws.

Attorneys are Officers of the Court and the Status Quo

But you are wrong! TIF. They do support me in what I say because they don't refute my interpretations of Item 20 with any comments. If I am wrong about something, they correct me. They have been my teachers and they are all men of integrity who do not lie. This is what I have depended on in my search for the truth. I am not happy with the truth I have discovered. Even Dale N. never told me any untruths when he countered my statements and you TIF would rather not deal in falsehoods.

Sometimes they comment on my posts but it is what they don't say that confirms that my comments are truth. Robert Purvin tried to get the FTC to do something about Item 19 and 20 and others have tried as well but this 30-year status quo, with its powerful interests, the franchisors, the banks and lenders, the SBA and the FTC-Commerce reject any changes in the regulation that could possible result in LESS stimulation of the economy. The time for change would be when the economy is good, of course, and now the economy is so bad that they have to premeditate the recruitment of veterans and their families to stimulate the economy.

You know TIF that many veterans will invest in very high risk franchises ---not knowing the risk of the investment for which they have posted their houses and/ or savings as collateral. There could very well be violence in the future against government and the franchnisors because most veterans are taught how to use guns and to destroy the enemy. If a veteran gives his informed consent to investing at 30%, 40%, 60% chance of failure, more or less, he has consented to either success or failure with those odds and has nobody but himself to blame if he fails. But if he was tricked by the constructive fraud of disclosure and the contract of adhesion, he will feel angry, betrayed, and raped.

The difference between tricking a potential franchisee into signing a contract where he agrees he is investing at 100% of failure between the actual disclosure of the performance statistics of first-owners of the franchise and the ROI of current franchisees is a kind of fraud enabled by the constructive fraud of the UFOC and the boilerplate contract.

Attorneys, as officers of the Court, do not attack the law or the status quo or government regulators and government regulations on public websites but they don't tell untruths either. They understand that the premise of "the greater good" is used to rationalize the ineffective regulation that protects the ZORS at the expense of the ZEES, who are warriors who can be sacrificed for the economy ---again, perhaps!

Well JD...

 JD Says - "I know I said I wouldn't respond to the ranter any more, but when i see inacccurate statements about me, I'll correct them:"

Reply - 99% of the posts by the Item 20 Ranter have inaccuracies and they are so incoherent that it is excruciatingly hard to address them.

The Truth Shall Set You Free!

TIF

Item 20 Ranter Are you off you rocker?

People who ignore you are not by their silence supporting you.

Additionally your rants about veterans and franchising are just foolish. What difference does it make if a person buys a franchise and they are a veteran and get an incentive of some sort?  I appreciate the service of veterans and think it is great to recognize their service with an incentive, but they are no different than any other franchise buyer except for their military service.

The Truth Shall Set You Free!

TIF

Dude.

"There could very well be violence in the future against government and the franchnisors because most veterans are taught how to use guns and to destroy the enemy."

I am for the most part with you on your mission to get the word out, but you've got to be kidding on this one. Dipping into hyperbole isn't going to help things.

Sleep Tight.

Sleep Tight ---Not Hyperbole

Think about this "Sleep Tight."

Veterans who have served their country, especially in combat, where they see so many die so quickly and randomly, have to believe that their comrades have died for a good cause, for the cause of liberty and justice for all.

We are taught in our public schools to love our country --our flag --- our constitution, and to die for it, if necessary. We see throughout history how humans have volunteered to die for what they believe to be truth and justice, etc...

Veterans are realists by their training but also idealists by reason of their sacrifices and the sacrifices of their comrades. Their perceived betrayal by government would make them very angry because it is the fallen idealists who turn on themselves and their betrayer. Think about Timothy McVeigh, a nice Catholic Boy who loved the Army and wanted to be a Ranger and was rejected (unfairly in his mind) and who turned his anger on the government to become the worst domestic terrorist of all times. His war and his act was against what he believed to be the injustice of the United States Government and until the day he died, he maintained that "justice" was his real mission.

The many franchisees who have committed suicides because of bad franchise deals where they lost everything turned their anger and despair on themselves but veterans may be different.

Think on this! Sleep Tight! And thank you for helping to get the word out.

Timothy McVeigh.

How Timothy McVeigh decided to right his perceived wrongs is quite an exception to the rule. To extrapolate his actions to the actions of veterans who may get taken by a shady franchise is not reasonable. Your mission to modify franchisor disclosure law is reasonable in the sense that it addresses franchisee experiences which appear to be more the norm than the exception. To include the exceptional behavior of others to corroborate your argument doesn't help your argument - much like a franchisor pointing to a mere handful of successful units in a large system doesn't corroborate the argument that their system is a 'proven model'.

Sleep Tight.

Exception to the Rule

True! But even one "exception to the rule" can cause great damage and it is really not smart of government to premeditate the sacrifice of veterans and their families who have already made sacrifices for their country.

Will you deny that The PATRIOT EXPRESS LOAN initiative is not a means of stimulating the economy for the government?

You know that of late, potential suicides turn their rage outwardly and this is a new phenomenon in our culture.

If you study the suicidal and the homicidal subjects, they have many emotional triggers in common. The homicidal subject doesn't achieve health by going through all of the stages of a "death"sentence (so to speak) and doesn't get behind his rage and despair to the "acceptance" stage.

Since Veterans will be approached from the standpoint that their service is honored and that is why they can get a Patriot Express Loan and a FranVet Discount on a franchise, they will interpret this as government endorsement of the franchise.

The targets of franchising in the past were different. First, the immigrants who had enough money and who could speed up immigration, and then the jobless, or the rich who wanted something to do, and now the middle class and the veterans are targeted for the collateral in their houses and savings that make them a good resource for the franchisors.

I don't think the extrapolation is off base but I respect you from your postings and I will take your advice.

Thanks for looking at my point of view. Even if there is not chance to get franchising regulated as well as securities are regulated, we should try ----or perhaps we should just get rid of regulation of franchising entirely?

Post new comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.