Habib and Gluck memorialized their claim in their legal response to Dunkin' Donuts' lawsuit against them (called an Answer), a lawsuit started by Dunkin' in Brooklyn Federal court, by alleging that:

(1) Dunkin' has a "scheme . . . to sell franchises to persons seeking to better themselves in the business world";

(2) Dunkin' Donuts' franchise agreement is "one-sided, unilateral and non-negotiable";

(3) Dunkin' seeks "to find a technical violation of the franchise agreement," which is one that "does not affect the operation of the franchise or the integrity or honesty of the franchisee or the funds that [Dunkin gets]";

(4) Dunkin' deliberately looks to create a default of the franchise agreement to force franchisees to pay penalties or sell their stores, "all of which enriches [Dunkin' Donuts'] bottom line";

(5) Dunkin Donuts' conduct "is unconscionable" and violates the law and "constitutes a fraud."

What do you think, Dear Readers?

Commentary: You can't know the whole story just from newspaper accounts and reviewing court papers, but in my opinion it seems that Dunkin' is (what we used to call as kids) "dirty-fighting."

Page 2 of 2 :: First | Last :: Prev | 1 2 | Next