F.T.C. Public Comment 12

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

Comment #12

From: William Cory ten.knilhtrae|yrocllib#ten.knilhtrae|yrocllib

To: HQ.HQ02(franpr)

Date: 4/18/97 7:01am

Subject: Comment on FTC Rule

Sirs or Ladies:

I am submitting this comment in response to your call for public comment on the revision of the current Franchise Rule.

The current FTC Rule applies identically to both Business Opportunities and to Franchises, and I believe this is the way it should stay. I am in the midst of a dispute at this very moment with a Utah company who sold to me by phone (to Colorado) a business opportunity and training program, misrepresented the truth regarding the training, discontinued the training unilaterally, and now is stalling on the process of the return and refund situation.

I believe that it is only my stated intention to contact the FTC and my knowledge of the Franchise Rule's applicability in this situation is helping me. However, that is an assumption; I am not sure they understand the Franchise Rule's applicability to their business opportunity offering.

Like another commenter, I believe the public should have the right to a cause of action under the rule, also allowing reasonable attorney's fees, for a breach that is governed by the rule.

Thank you for your consideration.

Bill Cory
Colorado Springs, CO

CC: FTC.SMTP("moc.tenoben|notxepJ#moc.tenoben|notxepJ")

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


Risks: F.T.C. Public Comments, United States, 1997, Misrepresentations, Can’t sue, United States, 19970418 Comment 12

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