3 ms·

If Taylor just buys everything back, they no longer have a business, no? Wouldn't that be a good incentive structure for change?

• kube-system 3y ago
  Taylor wouldn't be buying anything back because no franchisee wants to torpedo their investment over an ice cream machine.
  • bell-cot 3y ago
    Assume a loophole-free Commercial Equipment Lemon Law would disallow any "Oops, sorry, your contract with McD. requires you to suffer while we profit!" crap. Or perhaps McD. would also be liable for agonizing fines?
    • kube-system 3y ago
      Then you're not talking about a lemon law, you're talking about something else. I think what you actually want are laws that regulate franchise agreements. That's the actual problem here.
• JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > If Taylor just buys everything back, they no longer have a business, no? No. They have a monopoly. If they’re forced to buy them back, they’ll incorporate that cost into the next round that the franchises are required to purchase.
  • bell-cot 3y ago
    If Taylor buy $X machines back for $X plus agonizing financial penalties, then figures they'll recover the losses selling $2X machines...$4X machines - then the SEC will be expecting "Taylor may not be a viable or sustainable business" disclosures in Taylor's next quarterly filing. If there is one - major creditors and investors could move first.
    • JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > then figures they'll recover the losses selling $2X machines...$4X machines Yes, this is what having a captive market means. The problem is the franchise agreement. Shoehorning this into a lemon-law framework doesn’t work.