Court rules in favour of Dunkin' Donuts franchisees

Now, a Quebec judge has slammed Dunkin’ Brands Group Inc., siding with a group of 21 former franchisees who sued the U.S. food service giant, saying it failed to heed their warnings more than 15 years ago about the Tim Hortons juggernaut and what they needed the parent to do to protect the business. The judge awarded the group, which operated 32 outlets, $16.4-million in damages plus legal costs. “The greatest failing of all was [the parent company’s] failure to protect its brand in the Quebec market,” Quebec Superior Court Justice Daniel Tingley said in a blistering judgment released Friday.

The Globe and Mail
June 25, 2012

Court rules in favour of Dunkin' Donuts franchisees
Sean Silcoff

Dunkin%20quebec.JPG

In 2003, Allied Domecq, at the time the owner of Dunkin’ Donuts, entered into a master franchisee agreement with convenience store giant Alimentation Couche-Tard Inc. (Francis Vachon/The Canadian Press)

For decades, Dunkin Donuts was the undisputed coffee and doughnuts champion of Quebec, with more than 200 stores across the province. But after Tim Hortons stepped up its expansion in the province in the 1990s, the U.S. chain’s business fell down a hole, and there are just 11 Dunkin’ Donuts left in Quebec.

Now, a Quebec judge has slammed Dunkin’ Brands Group Inc., siding with a group of 21 former franchisees who sued the U.S. food service giant, saying it failed to heed their warnings more than 15 years ago about the Tim Hortons juggernaut and what they needed the parent to do to protect the business. The judge awarded the group, which operated 32 outlets, $16.4-million in damages plus legal costs. “The greatest failing of all was [the parent company’s] failure to protect its brand in the Quebec market,” Quebec Superior Court Justice Daniel Tingley said in a blistering judgment released Friday.

“A successful brand is crucial to the maintenance of healthy franchises. However, when the brand … collapses, so too do those who rely upon it. And this is precisely what has happened in this case.”

Canton, Mass.-based Dunkin’ Brands said in a statement that it “strongly disagrees” with the ruling and plans to appeal. The company also said Monday that will increase its legal reserve from $4-million due to the ruling.

With Tim Hortons stepping up its expansion in Quebec in 1996, Dunkin’ Donuts franchisees began alerting then-owner Allied Domecq about what they called the “Tim Horton’s phenomenon.” At the time, Tim Hortons Inc., which opened its 500th store in Quebec recently, had just 60 outlets in Quebec, while Dunkin Donuts’ was coming off an extended period where it faced little competition.

The franchisees continued to press for an action plan, which prompted Allied to reply in 2000 with an incentive program to help franchisees to update their stores. But the refurbishment was costly and few took Allied up on its offer. Meanwhile, a promised 15 per cent boost in sales never materialized for those that did renovate. Conditions deteriorated, sales declined and stores continued to close. Allied entered into a master franchisee agreement with Alimentation Couche-Tard Inc. in 2003, but the relationship was short lived and the convenience store giant bailed in 2008, when there were just 41 stores left in Quebec. “Dunkin’ Donuts did not deliver on the business promise they made,” said Frédéric Gilbert, a lawyer for the the plaintiffs.

“When we started [in 1984], Dunkin’ Donuts was the best in coffee and doughnuts in the world,” said Jacques Doyon, a former franchisee. “We worked very hard in this business and we believed in Dunkin’ Donuts. But we had many problems” with the company.

In its defence, Dunkin’ Brands blamed the franchisees, saying the stores suffered from poor operations, service and upkeep. The judge ruled: “This was a defence utterly devoid of substance.”

Jennifer Dolman, a Toronto-based franchise lawyer, said while disputes between franchisees and franchisors are common, “it’s rare for a court to find that there was such a devaluation of the brand.”

Franchise lawyer David Sterns said “this is the first decision in Canada to go so far as to say there’s a duty of a franchisor to ensure the system succeeds against [such] a formidable competitor.” He added that courts have been closely reviewing franchise agreements, which typically list many obligations on the part of franchisees – who pay for access to the brand name, trademarks, systems and goodwill – but far fewer for franchisors. “This is one more case that will help us to understand the duties of franchisors,” he said.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/court-rules-in-favour-of-dunkin-donuts-franchisees/article4369753/


Brought to you by WikidFranchise.org

Risks: 1,001 ways to make your life miserable, 100 per cent of settlements have gag orders, 2 per cent of valid claims make it to Trial, Able to finance and sell negative cash flow franchise on crooked appraisals, Abusive relationships of all kinds affects people deeply, Ad hominem attack, Advertising fund buys franchisor’s assets, Advertising fund use disagreements, Award-winning franchisees, Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), 2000, Canada, Ban waivers of legal rights, Bandwagon effect, Blame the victim, Brand backlash: franchisees suffer because brand owners screw up, Breach of contract, Broken relationships, ruined lives and alienated children, Can’t sue, Class action lawsuits are an unproven form of remedy, Class action lawsuits benefit lawyers, not franchisees, Class action only as good as the lawyers involved, Class-action dead end, Coerced waiver of legal rights, self, Contracts seen as unenforceable or void, Court decision favorable to franchisees, David and Goliath story, Debt traps, Deceptive business practices, Externalities: cheap business decision when someone else pays, Extortion, Feudal relationships, Franchisor abandonment, Franchisor chooses to do nothing when told of investor losses, Franchisor negligent in not protecting tradename, Franchisor will appeal decision to gain time, FranWhack: a system that is not investment-worthy, Fraud, renovation, Ideas once outrageous are now considered normal, Imbalance of information and power, Incompetent or predatory: for the small business investor, the outcome is the same, Indemnification provisions, Independence, Independence: time to break the chain, Independent businesses much higher profit than franchised ones, Independent businesses survive longer than franchised ones, Individuals with a very successful career history, Ineffective marketing, Infamous trademark system, Investment made during stressful life event, Justice delayed is justice denied, Knew or could have reasonably been expected to know, Lawsuits, group, Lease controlled by franchisor, Lease margins are an important source of franchisor revenue, Lease obligations make franchisees pay even if not in business, Leasehold improvements worth next to nothing, Liar Loans, Live by the lawsuit, die by the lawsuit, Loan repudiation, Loan-broker fraud, Lower quality franchisees, Ludicrous demands, Mad as hell not going to take it anymore, Massive defaults, Misrepresentations, Mom-and-Pop franchisees at greatest risk, Money pit franchise, Most lucrative form of commercial lending, franchising, Must buy only through franchisor (tied buying), Name and shame campaign, No franchisor support, Misrepresentation, Only 3 ways out: resell to next loser, independence & be sued or abandon and go bankrupt, Only opening new stores for the quick cash grab, Opportunism Test: If asset ownership were reversed, would decision likely change?, Opportunism: contract creates powers which are used to strip investor value during relationship, Opportunism: self-interest with deceit, Past the Tipping Point of public contempt for franchising, Pawns in a game they can't win, Personal guarantees cause good money to go after bad, Piling on: franchisor can afford a few awards but not hundreds, Polishing a turd of an argument, Predatory actions, Predatory franchise lending, Predatory lending, Protect gross negligence, wanton recklessness and intentional misconduct, Rebranding financed by adding more government guaranteed loan, Rebranding is a great way to raise franchisor revenue, Relative of franchisor owns construction company, Renewal of contract contingent on franchisee waiving all legal rights, Renting a business causes problems down the road, Restrict gag orders, Risk much higher for franchisee than independent business, Same-store sales drop, Scapegoating, Secret kickbacks and rebates, Selling franchisee won’t sell a new franchisee a financial time bomb, Should anyone trust anything associated with franchising anymore?, Sign away human rights and legal remedies, Statute of Limitations, Ontario: 2 to 15 years, Stores shuttered, Success or failure is within the direct control of the individual franchisee, Sue first and ask questions later, Sue the bank, Suppliers and landlords act as if they were the franchisor, Supply margins are a hidden added royalty payment, System designed to fail for franchisees, System is collapsing, Tied contracting, Tip of the iceberg, Trademark, Tremendous desire to warn others, Trial decision always appealed, Truth, Unproven business model, Unilateral changes in business model drive franchisees' profits down, Unsafe at any Brand?, Unsophisticated buyers, Volume rebates, Waiver of legal rights, War of attrition, When the franchisor tanks, so does the franchisee, Who selected these allegedly moron franchisees in the first place?, Why franchisors sublease to franchisees, Why should we care? It's not our money., Will work even when Variable costs > than Selling price, You may not be the 1st but you could be the next, Canada, 20120625 Court rules

Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License