Dunkin Donuts sues small franchise "owner"

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/brooklyn/2008/04/29/2008-04-29_dunkin_donuts_business_practices_have_lo-1.html

If she really thinks she's being wronged then fight the lawsuit. They violated the contract so dunkin has every right to sue them. She should have understood the terms of her contract better by consulting her lawyer before making any business decisions. Plus, she says that they force out single owners for multi-unit owners after she mentions in the beginning of the article that she herself is a multi-unit owner. I thought she was going to say it was racism at first by mentioning her background as well as her business partners. I don't really see the point of this article. If she has a problem and feels like she is being wronged just fight it

This gives me one more reason to avoid Dunkin Donuts!

quote:

Originally posted by fattybomatty

If she really thinks she's being wronged then fight the lawsuit. They violated the contract so dunkin has every right to sue them. She should have understood the terms of her contract better by consulting her lawyer before making any business decisions. Plus, she says that they force out single owners for multi-unit owners after she mentions in the beginning of the article that she herself is a multi-unit owner. I thought she was going to say it was racism at first by mentioning her background as well as her business partners. I don't really see the point of this article. If she has a problem and feels like she is being wronged just fight it

"just fight it" equals time AND Money. My take on this article is that DD is trying to squeeze out the little franchise owners in order to award those franchises to larger, more aggressive franchisees, in order to grow the brand.

Where is DD's loyalty to this person who has spent their life savings on DD ?

DD's tactics border on ludicrous.

This industry publications has some court documents attached (as PDF files) to the article:
http://www.bluemaumau.org/5531/dunkin_donuts_mom_and_pops_squeezed_out_private_equity_firms

There was an article about this franchisee in The New York Times several months ago. The article mentioned a contract dispute, but gave no details. Well, if you read the Dunkin Donuts complaint, the franchisee did sell part of the business. If you read the recent statements to the press by the franchisees, they did not sell any part of the business. Clearly, someone is lying. Well, maybe not lying in the strict definition of the term. Maybe just trying to pull the wool over our eyes.

With Dunkin Donuts taken over by investment bankers that will probably will want to take them public again in a few years and make a huge bundle of cash, it is worth looking at what relations are between the franchisor and franchisees. There is a Dunkin Donuts Independent Franchise Owners organization that levels the playing field a bit.

quote:

Originally posted by bigcab

quote:

Originally posted by fattybomatty

If she really thinks she's being wronged then fight the lawsuit. They violated the contract so dunkin has every right to sue them. She should have understood the terms of her contract better by consulting her lawyer before making any business decisions. Plus, she says that they force out single owners for multi-unit owners after she mentions in the beginning of the article that she herself is a multi-unit owner. I thought she was going to say it was racism at first by mentioning her background as well as her business partners. I don't really see the point of this article. If she has a problem and feels like she is being wronged just fight it

"just fight it" equals time AND Money. My take on this article is that DD is trying to squeeze out the little franchise owners in order to award those franchises to larger, more aggressive franchisees, in order to grow the brand.

Where is DD's loyalty to this person who has spent their life savings on DD ?

DD's tactics border on ludicrous.

She violated the contract she had with DD. It has the right to take legal action and is. How are its tactics ludicrous? She is trying to make this a sob story, but if she had consulted a lawyer before this business decision this would not have happened. Plus, I'm sure there's more to this story that she's not telling. Like I said before she is making it out that larger franchisee's are the problem, but it looks like she was on her way to being one of those with already owning two of them. The fact is she screwed up by making a bad decision, but is making the corporation out to be in the wrong because it is exercising its legal rights as per the contract. This all could have been avoided by understanding the contract and/or contacting her lawyer for advice

also, what she says about dunkin donuts wanting to expand with all those stores yet pushing out single franchisees to have them taken over by larger ones doesn't really make sense for expansion because then they are not expanding. If her theory were correct, that they want the larger franchisees to expand more, then they would be helping them open new businesses not taking over other ones.

Whats ludicrous is that ( if her story is factual ) She had no malice toward DD when she offered the 15%, She notified corporate, then rescinded the OFFER when told it was against DD corp. policy. It should have ended there. Now DD wants the franchise AND 100K penalty. Those tactics are Ludicrous and draconian.

Always know your contract and consult a lawyer before making decisions. It is that simple

Maybe that is the secret with all the lawsuits. Dunkin Donuts needs to "take care" of people who are trying to game them, but Dunkin Donuts probably doesn't want to see any lawsuit go to a jury trial. Too much inside information gets to be made public. So, they file a lawsuit asking for blue sky. At this point, the whole thing is about setting a number. The settlement amount. None of these lawsuits ever seem to be decided by a jury.

quote:

Originally posted by David_NYC

Maybe that is the secret with all the lawsuits. Dunkin Donuts needs to "take care" of people who are trying to game them, but Dunkin Donuts probably doesn't want to see any lawsuit go to a jury trial. Too much inside information gets to be made public. So, they file a lawsuit asking for blue sky. At this point, the whole thing is about setting a number. The settlement amount. None of these lawsuits ever seem to be decided by a jury.

Good point..Not to mention a possible PR circus.

quote:

Originally posted by David_NYC

Maybe that is the secret with all the lawsuits. Dunkin Donuts needs to "take care" of people who are trying to game them, but Dunkin Donuts probably doesn't want to see any lawsuit go to a jury trial. Too much inside information gets to be made public. So, they file a lawsuit asking for blue sky. At this point, the whole thing is about setting a number. The settlement amount. None of these lawsuits ever seem to be decided by a jury.

You're right a majority of cases never make it to trial because it is cheaper to just settle. And if there is some sort of "conspiracy" or unlawful activity by DD on all these franchisees they could just file a class action lawsuit. But my guess is DD's in-house and outside counsel decide it is better to take a hard stance with its franchisees to set a tone for other franchisees that they better follow the rules set forth or else.

I wouldn't have anything to do with a company that has Rachel Ray as their spokesperson

It is no secret that all the fast food franchiese now prefer doing business with "master franchisors"..they do not want and in most cases will no longer even sell you an individual unit unless you own a building or piece of property that they deem a very, very high traffic location.

They are looking for investors with deep pocket who can sign a development contract to open 5-10 stores a year in a certain area. Sadly, it's no worse than anything else today. If you are not a big time player, you are out of luck. the days of single unit franchise ownership are over!

Cindy needs to get herself a contigency lawyer right away. If she cannot find one, she has no case. If none of these lawyers are willing to invest their time in her case on this basis, she's in trouble.

quote:

Originally posted by Robearjr

I wouldn't have anything to do with a company that has Rachel Ray as their spokesperson

Why? What has she done wrong?

quote:

Originally posted by saps

quote:

Originally posted by Robearjr

I wouldn't have anything to do with a company that has Rachel Ray as their spokesperson

Why? What has she done wrong?

I find her obnoxious, annoying, fake, etc...

There are many posts on RoadFood, as well as just about every other food site that expands on the problems of Ms. Ray. All you have to do is google her name, and you'll get numerous examples of what's wrong with her.

quote:

Originally posted by Robearjr

quote:

Originally posted by saps

quote:

Originally posted by Robearjr

I wouldn't have anything to do with a company that has Rachel Ray as their spokesperson

Why? What has she done wrong?

I find her obnoxious, annoying, fake, etc...

There are many posts on RoadFood, as well as just about every other food site that expands on the problems of Ms. Ray. All you have to do is google her name, and you'll get numerous examples of what's wrong with her.

I agree that she is one of the most absolutely annoying people to have ever been given air time by a TV network. A few months ago, in one of her DD commercials, she told us that she keeps "like a million pounds of Dunkin Donuts coffee" at home. "Like" a million pounds? What is "like a million pounds"? Is it 999,999 lbs., or is it 1,000,001 lbs., or is it...? At least she could have clarified the amount that she keeps on hand at home. Maybe her problem is simply ingesting too much caffeine.

While she could undoubtedly not spell "hyperbole", she is grossly guilty of spouting nonsensical hyperboles.

quote:

Originally posted by Robearjr

quote:

Originally posted by saps

quote:

Originally posted by Robearjr

I wouldn't have anything to do with a company that has Rachel Ray as their spokesperson

Why? What has she done wrong?

I find her obnoxious, annoying, fake, etc...

There are many posts on RoadFood, as well as just about every other food site that expands on the problems of Ms. Ray. All you have to do is google her name, and you'll get numerous examples of what's wrong with her.

Oh. Yeah, she's bothersome, but not as gross and phony as Paula Deen.

In any event, if I want to get a doughnut or some coffee and Dunkin Donuts is what's available, I'll probably go there regardless of what I think about her. She doesn't have that much impact on my life to determine where I go to eat.

quote:

Originally posted by saps

quote:

Originally posted by Robearjr

quote:

Originally posted by saps

quote:

Originally posted by Robearjr

I wouldn't have anything to do with a company that has Rachel Ray as their spokesperson

Why? What has she done wrong?

I find her obnoxious, annoying, fake, etc...

There are many posts on RoadFood, as well as just about every other food site that expands on the problems of Ms. Ray. All you have to do is google her name, and you'll get numerous examples of what's wrong with her.

Oh. Yeah, she's bothersome, but not as gross and phony as Paula Deen.

In any event, if I want to get a doughnut or some coffee and Dunkin Donuts is what's available, I'll probably go there regardless of what I think about her. She doesn't have that much impact on my life to determine where I go to eat.

Living in Illinois, maybe you don't understand that most of us ignorant southerners have a "Paula Deen" in most of our families. She might be our mother, our aunt, or our cousin, but she's there.

If you don't like Paula Deen, fine. Don't watch her. I think she is what she is.

You mean they've cloned her? Egad!

quote:

Originally posted by saps

You mean they've cloned her? Egad!

It could be worse. They could clone Rachel Ray.

quote:

Originally posted by Tedbear

quote:

Originally posted by saps
You mean they've cloned her? Egad!

It could be worse. They could clone Rachel Ray.

Sometimes, for fun (I lead a tiny life), I'll put on 30 minute meals and see how long it takes before I hear an annoying Rayism like "yummo", "deelish" or "how good does that look kids?". I rarely get past 7 seconds.

I'm somewhat ignorant on this contract thing. Is DD saying that just because she said she WANTED to sell the manager 15% they were putting the kibosh on her? Or did she actually take action and that is what DD is angry about? If it was just in the wanting stage, that sound like the George Carlin skit about not even bothering to feel up Mary as you sinned just because you wanted to.

The past few times I've stopped in a DD for coffee for my mom (she likes it), the service was beyond horrible.

quote:

Originally posted by KOK

I'm somewhat ignorant on this contract thing. Is DD saying that just because she said she WANTED to sell the manager 15% they were putting the kibosh on her? Or did she actually take action and that is what DD is angry about?

Read David_NYC's post above.

On the link he provided DD says in their lawsuit she actually did sell.

quote:

Originally posted by KOK

Sometimes, for fun (I lead a tiny life), I'll put on 30 minute meals and see how long it takes before I hear an annoying Rayism like "yummo", "deelish" or "how good does that look kids?". I rarely get past 7 seconds.

If it was just in the wanting stage, that sound like the George Carlin skit about not even bothering to feel up Mary as you sinned just because you wanted to.

A magazine last month did a timing of all the talk shows and RR beat them all bad.
She clocked in an average of 109 words per minute.
I believe all the others were no more than 68. Go Rache.

Oh, and there is never enough Carlin.