As I commented previously, The AAFD Seal and Awards can be misused by franchisors as another PLUS to sell unviable franchises to the public. But, as Robert Purvin of AAFD pointed out, at least the fair contract, perhaps, gives franchisees of Cuppy’s a better break at getting their deposits back, etc..

But, what is the good of a fair contract if the franchisor doesn’t produce a viable and profitable franchise for sale to the public? While the AAFD disclaims that they are endorsing the viability of the franchise, it is obvious that unsophisticated buyers of franchises will believe that the AAFD wouldn’t award a Seal of Approval/Fair Contract, etc.. unless the franchisor was selling a valuable product to the public. (Prospective buyers, of course, don’t realize that the FTC Rule permits franchisors to sell unviable franchise concepts to the public, as well, so the AAFD is doing the best they can to improve franchising for franchisees.)

I think Sean’s take on all of this is correct but the AAFD’s rationalization is also reasonable. The fair contract in itself may give franchisees more legal rights than they had under the “previous’ unfair contract.

It will be interesting to see how this Cuppy’s thing works out under the ownership of Dale Nabors who said he he working on the matter of refunds of deposits to prospective Cuppy franchisees.