[will_brown]

>The McDonald's franchise agreement specifies the address the franchise must be located. In effect, McDonald's can cancel a franchise agreement by ending the rental agreement.

I don't think you are really taking a position, just acknowledging McD has power to enforce Franchise Agreements more than others Franchisors because separately they tend to also be landlord. on first reading though I thought your comment was suggesting more nefarious behavior because the dual relationship landlord/franchisor.

Just in case anyone else read your comment that way, I would just say as a lawyer I would feel pretty confident taking a case on behalf of a Franchisee who paid significant franchise fees to McD and was otherwise in full compliance with the Franchise Agreement, but my client's Franchise Agreement was de facto cancelled (and presumably Franchise fees kept by McD) because McD terminated the lease without cause.

Certainly if the Franchisee gave McD cause under either a Franchise or separate lease Agreement (failure to pay rent; using non McD suppliers; etc...) that is a different story, but legally McD couldn't just engage in the collection of Franchise fees only to evict tenants in a scam like fashion. again I don't think you were suggesting it, that was just my initial interpretation.

[JamesBarney]

My interpretation of what he says was basically McD's has more leverage. Part of establishing a restaurant is establishing enough return clientele at a certain location. And a large portion of the clientele might stay with the owner if it turned into a Jack in the Box. But this number drops off a cliff if it's also across the street. So the BATNA for a non-McDonalds franchisee is just switching franchises, and taking a hit to their business. But the BATNA for a McDonald's franchise is starting all over again.

[fraserharris]

Actually, the book expands on that. Originally, McDonald's franchise agreements had exclusive territories (in fact, a franchise agreement could be for an entire region/state/country). McDonald's franchise agreements eventually specified a particular address (own by McDonald's) without any exclusive territory. If you lose the rental of that property, you lose the ability to run the franchise.

[greedo]

Yup, our owner/operator didn't always like to follow the company line, and was rewarded by a new franchisee an exit north of his highest volume location. Of course his agreement gave him right of refusal for the new location, but the numbers didn't add up; so Oak Brook found a willing franchisee who ended up spending a fortune for a relatively low performing store. Eventually that location paid off (20 years of growth will do that), but for the original owner/operator, he saw a 25% yoy decline in sales. Oak Brook has a huge amount of leverage to keep franchisees in line and quiet.

[fraserharris]

Point well made! The book described it as mechanism to force a negligent franchise owner to sell their franchise (not unilaterally take their investment).