Comments on: COFFEE BEANERY: Exec’s Trafficing Conviction Leads to Franchisee Legal Win Part 1

By: sean

sean — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 14:31:19 +0000

Good points, gk2mom
It seems to me that there’s a problem when the business owner’s strategy is to open a “little coffee shop where the locals all gather with good cheer…”
A better strategy is “Find a need and fill it,” is it not?
If the market had no gathering spot, no coffee shop, it wouldn’t be so hard, would it?
One of the benefits of franchising is that it gives you choices to pick the type of business that fills the need in your particular market – regardless of your personal expertise.
Did these franchisees compare the need for, say, junk hauling services, temporary personnel placement, tanning salons, etc. and then decide that there was a need for a coffee and sandwich cafe?
I don’t mean to be unsympathetic, but realistically a coffee franchisor is going to sell the romance of owning a coffee franchise. The guy in the next booth at the IFE show may be selling the unromantic concept of industrial fluid recycling or windshield repair. The prospect needs to match the need in their market with the concept that fills that need and that they can afford and operate (somewhat) enjoyably.

By: gk2mom

gk2mom — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 12:47:41 +0000

Whoever stated, “Owning your own business is comparable to natural childbirth” is dead on. Its much more work than many think. Everyone has an “image” of the little coffee shop where the locals all gather with good cheer but reality is small business is a lonely, tough business to be in.

By: sean

sean — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 00:07:10 +0000

Quit trying to throw the red herring of the traffic cones into the discussion. I believe that would be, technically, an orange herring. I have to say I strongly agree with Tiffany. At least the part about my writing. Thanks Tiffany. At least someone around here appreciates me.

By: Carol Cross

Carol Cross — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 23:36:52 +0000

Tiffany! Are you trying to change the subject and protect your interests somehow?

You don’t think there is anything illegal or immoral in tricking the public into buying franchises while hiding the risk from the buyer under cover of government regulation.

If the CB incident is not the perfect example of FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT TO CONTRACT, it is only because the federal government decided to protect frnchisors from common law fraud in the State Courts in order to encourage franchising in the economy.

Mr. Shaw should get busted for plain, ordinary fraud in my opinion. Quit trying to throw the red herring of the traffic cones into the discussion.

You are so obvious and hopefully you will never get picked to serve on a jury! Want to bet, Tiffany, there will never be a jury trial!

Carol

By: Tiffany

Tiffany — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 20:25:59 +0000

First of all Sean, you are a brilliant writer. Secondly, to the franchisees involved in this. You are so caught up in your pride that you cant accept that the store failed because of you, not because of the franchisor. You read the company UFOC, as highly educated as you both are ..you should maybe be a little embarassed right now. My guess would be that neither of you have had any experience in the service industry.
Sounds to me like no one practiced any COMMON SENSE in buying their business. You really think that blaming Mr. Shaw for not letting you know he got busted sealing some Traffic cones years ago makes him a dishonest person? That is really reaching.. I sure wish I were part of the jury.

By: Carol Cross

Carol Cross — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 16:12:28 +0000

Correction: Dale Nabors is the new owner of Cuppy’s Coffee —-not CB.

What is it with all of these Coffee franchises?

Carol

By: Carol Cross

Carol Cross — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 00:30:36 +0000

It is so sad to know how many have been destoryed by franchising! Could this be avoided? Hopefully, the banks and the lenders will be alerted by the sub-prime scandal and the worst franchisors won’t be able find franchisees who can obtain loans to buy their lousy franchises.

You are right, Sean! when you say “No one should start a business if they cannot afford to fail. Period.” (Dale Nabors, the new owner of CB used to say this on Blue Mau Mau. One wonders if he lives by his own advice. He has children to educate. But, of course, he knows that the contract protects him and maybe he can afford to try to make CB a viable investment for himself.)

This is excellent advice but, of course, when push comes to shove and the prospective franchisee NEEDS a job and income, and the “risk” is obscured from view in the sales process, we see the outcome.

This is the ugly implication of The Patriot Express Loan Initiative of the SBA and I’m afraid that many VETS and/or their families are going to be hurt because they won’t understand the risk involved. I’m not against franchising if the risk is understood by the new buyer of the franchise.

Thanks for helping me to warn VETS and their families who will be looking for a way to make a living when they return to the States.

Carol

By: sean

sean — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 23:36:06 +0000

Just hours after writing about Bob Baber I learned that a failed Butterfly Life franchisee – facing mounting debt and foreclosure – took her own life.

These issues have deadly serious consequences. Franchisors need to think about the kinds of ramifications that their actions can have when they sell to people who are not equipped to deal with the consequences of business ownership.

At the same time, franchisees need to do their homework and understand the real ramifications of their decisions. No one should start a business if they cannot afford to fail. Period.

By: COFFEE BEANERY: Exec’s Cone-viction Leads to Franchisee Victory Part 2

COFFEE BEANERY: Exec’s Cone-viction Leads to Franchisee Victory Part 2 — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 22:09:42 +0000

[...] COFFEE BEANERY: Exec’s Trafficing Conviction Leads to Franchisee Legal Win Part 1, I recounted how Coffee Beanery V.P. Kevin Shaw’s dalliance into the secet underworld of [...]

By: Carol Cross

Carol Cross — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 20:14:26 +0000

Yes! You are right Sean! You’ve see so much of it. The deck is stacked — I understand that even more States are thinking about reducing the statute of limitations for filing claims against franchisors —because it brings franchisors into the state to stimulate the economy and help the job numbers.

It’s just a money game for the franchisors —-the Statute of Limitations has expired for many of their franchisees, etc.. and they do, of course, what is best for their bottom line.

Franchisees have to fight not only the franchisors but their insurance companies. The deck is stacked. But Insurance companies won’t pay out on “Fraud” so don’t franchisors take the risk that they might lose and be found guilty of fraud and they will not have any insurance coverage to help pay to fight the case?

Where did the $100,000 that CB paid out to the other Maryland Franchisee come from? —from Insurance or from the Coffee Beanery?

Its a pity that the courts were made part of it. When enough people lose faith in the system of justice under both criminal and civil law, they will take to the streets. Many great countries have found this out the hard way.

I never forget Bob Baber – Quiznos —and when I get discouraged and think my posting is accomplishing so little, I just read that suicide note again and keep on trying to educate and warn.

Thanks, Sean, for respecting free speech and not blocking my comments from your Site. I could tell you what I think the ABA stands for but I mustn’t be vulgar in my old age and insult their Mothers.