Collo against Mcdo
Bernard Collorafi
Franchised during 10 years, I had three restaurants MCDONALD' S in renting-management in Antibes on the French riviera.
I was the best one of the franchised, very well noted, and enjoyed a very good reputation within network so my restaurants were classified restaurants witnesses or restaurants tests to serve example.
In 1996 the multinational decides in pursuit of the development and to face up the establishment of a rival (Quick) in 500m of my 1st restaurant, to open a second establishment " Antibes Nord “.
Then, it is in the same breath, the opening of a third and fourth unit nearby as well as two other openings in some kilometres.
In spite of a third restaurant which should be entrusted to me to my insistence, losses had become considerable consequence of a spectacular fall of the business figure and an also dazzling rise of the charge since this one on a fixed base whatever is the figure of generated sales.
It is obvious that the massive openings of several units in the space of some months caused the disaster hoped by the Society McDonald' S to put in badly my situation.
While the Society McDonald' S member of the French Federation of Frankness must respect imperatively the code of practice which envisages that:
- ” All Franchiseur must drive the development of the network without causing harm to the already installed partners”
(The judicial expertise of October 15th, 1999 ordered by the Court of appeal of Paris notes that Mister COLLORAFI invested 12 million francs (about 2 million euro) and that he dedicated all its time and all its energy to the development of the Sign.)
In 1998 I decide to allocate in justice the society Mcdonald' s.
In the Stopping of the Court of appeal of Paris of March 08th, 2000 the magistrates reported those who could drive my firms to complete failure by using faithless maneuvers only to appropriate my heritage and become rich.
” Mister Collorafi, they write, had no chance to take out there, even if he had delayed all sums in his societies that he had won during 10 years of activity!”
And they specify: “The Direction of the Society McDonald' S played with the life of franchised sound!”
The judicial deputy charged with the liquidation of my firms was surprised that the Magistrates having determined the whole responsibility of the Society McDonald' S did not condemn it in damages and let me support consequences of an economic warfare caused by the franchiseur. Also he could not allocate me in front of the court dealing with trade disputes for comblement of liability: “You are in no way representative has me t-il said and judicial expertise concluded in a very good management for your part!” “Vous n’êtes pas du tout responsable m’a t-il dit et l’expertise judiciaire a conclu à une très bonne gestion de votre part !”
The judicial deputy plans to allocate the society MCDONALD' S in responsibility to make it condemn in payment for justified damages.
Affair to be followed …
