ocean515
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2013
- Messages
- 36,760
- Reaction score
- 15,468
- Location
- Southern California
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Re: Dairy Queen owner unleashed a racist tirade on customer, He no longer has a Busin
If DQ leases the land to him, or if it owned the business outright and set him up as a franchisee to operate it, your claim would be true.
I originally wrote:
So, in general, a franchisee owns the land, the building, and all non-proprietary equipment contained in it. Even that equipment can be off limits to the franchisor if it can be shown it is also commercially available to the general market.
The franchisor can't demand the franchisee abandon his business simply because the franchisor yanks his agreement for cause.
You are not operating from a position of knowledge here calamity. Not sure why you are working so hard to prove it.
What does he own? He's probably leasing the building, either from the franchise or a holding company they control. He definitely does not own the ice cream machines, the chairs, the table, the counter, nothing. All that stuff is DQ controlled. He's either leasing it from DQ direct or from their approved suppliers.
Now, is he free to open up his own ice cream stand somewhere in Zion? Of course. But, he certainly cannot continue to operate out of the same building, using the same equipment.
If DQ leases the land to him, or if it owned the business outright and set him up as a franchisee to operate it, your claim would be true.
I originally wrote:
Not true. In general, a franchisee is licensed to represent the brand following the methods and branding identity required by the franchising organization. If a franchisee violates the agreement, the franchisor can revoke the license to represent their brand. They can't take the business.
So, in general, a franchisee owns the land, the building, and all non-proprietary equipment contained in it. Even that equipment can be off limits to the franchisor if it can be shown it is also commercially available to the general market.
The franchisor can't demand the franchisee abandon his business simply because the franchisor yanks his agreement for cause.
You are not operating from a position of knowledge here calamity. Not sure why you are working so hard to prove it.