F.T.C. Public Comment 83

In Item 3, the required disclosure of confidential settlements discourages settlement of disputes, and thereby encourages prolonging of litigation and arbitration. This should be reconsidered in my opinion.

FTC.jpg

U.S. Federal Trade Commission
May 16, 1997

Public Comment
Gary R. Duvall, attorney

Request for public comment on possible revisions to The Franchise Rule.

Comment #83

From: Duvall, Gary R. <GD1!SEATTLE!moc.liamtta.nnudmrg|DRG#moc.liamtta.nnudmrg|DRG>

To: HQ.HQ02(franpr)

Date: 5/16/97 10:22am

Subject: RE: Comment on FTC Franchise Rule Revision

I have a supplemental comment, on Item 1, below. These have to do with the importance of improving the UFOC format before adopting it as a federal standard.

In Item 3, the required disclosure of confidential settlements discourages settlement of disputes, and thereby encourages prolonging of litigation and arbitration. This should be reconsidered in my opinion.

In Item 17, last paragraph, there are two errors in the statutory references. The reference to Delaware should be to [Code Tit. 6, Ch 25, Sections 2551-1226], and the reference to Illinois should be to:

[85 ILCS 705/19 and 705/20].

For Review, see FTC “Table of Commenters”
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/franchise/comments/tabcomm.htm


Brought to you by WikiFranchise.org

Risks: F.T.C. Public Comments, United States, 1997, United States, 19970516 Comment 83

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