AAFD Suspends Cuppy’s Coffee’s "Recognition" as an Accredited Contract Recipient
Links the AAFD would rather you forget about:
AAFD: Franchising Watchdog… or Lapdog? Part 1
AAFD: Franchising Watchog… or Lapdog? Part 2
AAFD Quietly Suspends Cuppy’s Franchisor Accreditation
Cuppy’s Coffee: Some Words from AAFD Raises More Questions
Answer This Franchise Due Diligence Quiz Question
Franchise Buyers: Don’t Get Fooled by Fair Franchising Awards
Cuppy’s Coffee Franchisees: Show Some Gratitude!
In what passes for a boldness in the world of franchise associations, The American Association of Franchisees and Dealers (AAFD) announced today that it has “suspended its recognition of Cuppy’s Coffee and More, LLC as an AAFD Accredited Contract recipient, pending a determination of the Association’s Board of Directors that AAFD’s Accreditation of the Cuppy’s contract should be withdrawn.”
Not clear what “suspending recognition” means? Join the club. I guess it means that they have not suspended the actual accreditation of the Cuppy’s Coffee franchise contract that is no longer (and may have never been) in use, but they have decided that they won’t talk about it.
Now that it’s all over but the crying, and now that it’s clear the new owner is not interested in their involvement, the AAFD has stepped up and taken the initiative to begin revising history to show the bold activist role that it has taken in regard to Cuppy’s Coffee.
AAFD’s Statement Regarding the Suspension of Cuppy’s Coffee Accredited Contract Status
August 9, 2008 - The American Association of Franchisees and Dealers (AAFD) announced today that it has suspended its recognition of Cuppy’s Coffee and More, LLC as an AAFD Accredited Contract recipient, pending a determination of the Association’s Board of Directors that AAFD’s Accreditation of the Cuppy’s contract should be withdrawn.
In an Email to Cuppy’s CEO, Dale Nabors, AAFD Chairman Robert L. Purvin stated, “Due to the serious allegations that have been raised [regarding Cuppy’s failure to honor various contractual commitments], and your apparent decision to cease our communications, I have determined to suspend your Accredited status with the AAFD pending consideration and action of the AAFD Board of Directors.”
In a formal notice being delivered today to Cuppy’s Coffee, Purvin added, “In that the AAFD Board of Directors next meeting is set for September 4, 2008, I am acting to immediately to suspend Cuppy’s Accredited Contract status pending action of the AAFD Board. I am causing this action to be published on the AAFD Website, and to appropriate media. All listings of Cuppy’s Coffee will forthwith be removed from the AAFD Website, and we are instructing Cuppy’s management to remove all references to the AAFD from its Website and franchise marketing literature.”
Cuppy’s earned AAFD Accredited Status in May of 2007 in an admitted effort to reinvent its corporate personal and ‘arise from the ashes’ from legal and economic difficulties of its predecessor brand, Java Jo’z.
As part of its commitment to collaborative franchising practices, Cuppy’s adopted a new franchise agreement that substantially complied with the AAFD’s Fair Franchising Standards and further agreed to support the formation of an independent franchisee association, to collaborate with the development of a purchasing cooperative to be jointly owned by Cuppy’s and its franchisees, and to submit claims and disputes to mediation upon the request of any party.
In February of this year, the AAFD became aware of several claims that Cuppy’s or its affiliate, Elite Manufacturing, was not honoring promised construction deposit refunds. The AAFD commenced a publicly announced investigation of these ‘refund’ claims, including tracking some 22 refund demands that had been made between October, 2007 and April 2008. The AAFD reported that if it was determined that Cuppy’s was not honoring the provisions of its Accredited Contract that the AAFD would act to suspend or withdraw AAFD Accredited status to the company.
The AAFD was able to confirm that 18 claims had been resolved in a commercially reasonable fashion, and four claims were disputed. Cuppy’s issued a public statement of its intent to honor its contractual commitments, and to submit disputed claims to mediation through the AAFD. Through April, Cuppy’s fully cooperated with the AAFD’s investigation.
In April, 2008, Cuppy’s was sold to a new management team. The AAFD was subsequently advised that the company would abide by all written commitments, but that any oral commitments, including publicly acknowledged commitments to promised initiatives regarding an owners association, the purchasing cooperative and to mediate claims and disputes would be subject to further review.
Between July 15 and August 5, the AAFD became aware of a new series of complaints that Cuppy’s and/or Elite Manufacturing was not performing promised build outs of franchisee storefronts. Some claimants contended that they had been waiting for promised construction for months (and in some cases for more than a year), during which time the claimants were unable to open for business but were bound to pay rent on their premises. Around this time, the AAFD also learned that Cuppy’s had been sued by its retained general contractor for non-payment of construction invoices.
Despite diligent efforts of the AAFD to complete its investigation and to gain Cuppy’s fulfillment of promised initiatives with its franchisees to avoid sanctions from the AAFD, Cuppy’s new management has ceased to be cooperative, and since June 12, 2008, Cuppy’s has not replied to repeated invitations from the AAFD to respond to this new waive of complaints and allegations.
Mr. Purvin added that it is still not too late for Cuppy’s to avoid ultimate consequences by the AAFD. Said Purvin, “Our purpose remains to inspire fair contracts and collaborative relationships, and we are open to negotiating and mediating effective relief for all Cuppy’s franchisees in a manner that will effect restitution from injuries and will allow Cuppy’s Coffee to achieve the corporate goals set by new management upon its acquisition of the company.”
Purvin added, “The path to a successful resolution of the Cuppy’s quagmire is through communication, negotiation, collaboration, and if necessary, mediation. The path to certain destruction is to ignore the problem and face an inevitable and costly litigative path.”
WHAT DO YOU THINK? SHARE A COMMENT BELOW.
__________________________
Unhappy Franchisee: Franchising rumors, rants, controversies, issues, complaints & insider information you’re not supposed to know.
Visit FRANBEST’s: Unbiased franchise information, franchise interviews and detailed, searchable information on 400 franchise and business opportunities.
.
Franchisees, customers & experts vote for their favorite new franchises at Top New Franchise: Who’s hot. Who’s not.
Related Stories
POSTED IN: CUPPY'S COFFEE, x AAFD, x AWARDS & RECOGNITION








7 opinions for AAFD Suspends Cuppy’s Coffee’s "Recognition" as an Accredited Contract Recipient
confidential 2
Aug 13, 2008 at 10:17 am
A solution for those waiting has been presented to Cuppy’s, with no action on their part. See proposal below:
After thinking over our conference call yesterday, I am uncertain that it is clear to Cuppy’s what I mean by helping me sell my building. I am not asking you to buy my building yourself. Here is what my thought process and proposal are. Please correct me if it is not a correct scenario.
There are franchisees that have paid in a deposit of $40,000 (plus or minus) towards the construction of their dual drive thru building that have not had a building built for them yet. Presumably there are at least several franchisees in this position and if you proceed to start building their buildings now or when you move the company, they will still have months of waiting time before a building is deliverable to them.
Their new buildings will run them $209,000, plus whatever site preparation is necessary (excavation, foundation, paving, striping, landscaping, etc.).
They will have to pay to have their building shipped to them from your manufacturer, whoever that may now be, to their location.
It is quite possible that these franchisees who have been waiting so long are already paying lease and/or loan payments for a business that is no where near getting open. Surely they would be eager for the most timely solution possible.
I have a building for sale. If I lower my price to $150,000, the franchisee that is waiting and will have to continue waiting until their building comes off the assembly line could now have an opportunity to get a building immediately.
If that franchisee pays me $150,000 for my building, Cuppy’s could use the $40,000 that the franchisee may have already paid to facilitate the removal of my building. After all, the $40,000 they gave you already is a deposit towards a building, right?
The franchisee would get a like new building immediately for only $190,000 instead of having to wait for a new building and losing money by not being open. They will end up in the same boat that we are in if they lose all of their working capital up front.
The franchisee would still have to pay the same amount they were going to pay anyway for the additional costs to get their site ready and to have the building transported.
The franchisee would be happy in that they would have a complete building, full set of equipment, with all the extras already included (small wares, shelving, condiment bins, cup dispensers, outdoor furniture, trash cans, stools, buckets, bins, mops, brooms, filing cabinet, décor, bar stools, and much more). They would have no additional hidden expenses to incur. They would have no additional waiting time once their site is ready. They would not have to wait for your factory to complete their building, in line behind however many others are waiting as well.
Cuppy’s would lose no money whatsoever. You have already gotten the deposit from the franchisee and surely it would not cost $40,000 to remove my building. You could facilitate the rapid opening of one of your franchisees who have been waiting for a long time and make them a very happy new store owner.
This would enable me to remove at least a portion of the debt that I owe on my SBA loan and would make me feel that I had at least gotten some response or relief from Cuppy’s and may give me a little more time to try to get above water so that we do not have to bankrupt. (Of course if you allow us to bankrupt, you can purchase the building for $15,000 - $25,000 as you stated yesterday and then flip it and sell it to a franchisee who has been waiting and make yourself a nice little profit. Would that really be the right thing to do, Dale, when you have an alternative that hurts no one, but helps everyone?)
Please respond immediately with your comments on this proposal.
Carol Cross
Aug 13, 2008 at 11:18 am
WOW! What a mess! And, to think that all of this is ENABLED by government regulation and a disclosure document that is said to be for the purpose of protecting investor franchisees. AND, as Sean says, even when the “ineffective” rules are broken, NOTHING is done and the tragedy is compounded.
sean
Aug 13, 2008 at 11:51 am
I have to avoid even reading through these tortured and convoluted AAFD press releases, because nearly every paragraph defies logic. I think their strategy is to make their communications so boring that nobody looks too closely or nods off before reason kicks in.
“The AAFD commenced a publicly announced investigation of these ‘refund’ claims, including tracking some 22 refund demands that had been made between October, 2007 and April 2008. The AAFD reported that if it was determined that Cuppy’s was not honoring the provisions of its Accredited Contract that the AAFD would act to suspend or withdraw AAFD Accredited status to the company.”
Money given between October, 2007 - April 2008 would have pre-dated the AAFD Accredited Contract, as the award was given in April and wasn’t in use yet. So what was the criteria of the AAFD investigation of the 22 claims?
What was the result? Did the AAFD deem that a refund was successfully returned if it had the franchise fee withheld (even without documentation a franchise fee had been paid by Elite to Cuppy’s), if it included a gag order preventing public disclosure of the terms (or any unflattering remark about Cuppy’s Coffee), and if it was paid over a period greater than a year with no interest?
Did the AAFD make an effort to determine whether these payments were even made by Cuppy’s? Or does the AAFD just value contracts in and of themselves… not whether they’re actually followed?
Carol Cross
Aug 13, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Looks like the desire of the AAFD to be a peace maker and a negotiator and to demonstrate that their “fair contracts” could make a difference in franchising has back fired on them in the Cuppy’s fiasco. But, in order to remain viable as a trade organization, the AAFD has to serve both the franchisor and the franchise community as a non-profit trade association.
Looking in from the outside, I don’t understand how the AAFD can be truly effective as NEUTRAL in conflicts between franchisors and franchisees because, of course, the balance of power is with the franchisor in the contractual relationship —even the fairer contract. A fairer contract, if it is truly a possibility and if it were to become a reality that franchisors and franchisees, both, would value, could help to improve the franchisor-franchisee relationship.
I guess you are asking, Sean, whether or not the AAFD was more interested in taking center stage to advertise their fair contract accreditation than in really solving the very serious problems of the franchisees who weren’t getting a refund of their deposits when they couldn’t get financing.
Fair question! I think so!
Carol
sean
Aug 13, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Looking in from the outside, I don’t understand how the AAFD can be truly effective as NEUTRAL in conflicts between franchisors and franchisees because, of course, the balance of power is with the franchisor in the contractual relationship —even the fairer contract.
You make an important point. Even at the default level the balance of power is with the franchisor. I don’t really have a problem with that, in most cases. But now consider that in nearly every case, those who contact the AAFD have a situation that’s out of alignment, and balance needs to be restored. That means, usually, that the franchisees need someone pushing from their side to get the situation from Lose-Win back to Win-Win.
A neutral party might just bring the appearance that something’s being done, but not the reality. The reality is that franchisees need an advocate to help them regain some of their rights and restore the systems to balance. That means negotiating with both compromises and threats.
These “depositers” came to the AAFD for insider assistance and advocacy. They got rubber-stamped offers that were not negotiated in the least… that contained gag orders, fees withheld, interest free loans to Cuppy’s and no follow-up to see if they’d been followed.
The AAFD had a golden opportunity to show how relevant it could be… and it did.
Carol Cross
Aug 14, 2008 at 10:57 am
It’s TRUE. The AAFD was NOT relevant in this situation and did not help the depositors, and, unfortunately, did not help themselves, as well.
You were exactly right, Sean, and it brings to mind that some franchisees who spend time and money trying to negotiate fairer contracts and/or relationship problems with organizations like the AAFD might find that the “statute of limitations” has run out for any recourse against their franchisor in arbitration or the courts and there are still no solutions to their problems.
I think you and Richard Solomon of Franchise Remedies are on the same wave length. The only protection for the prospective franchisee is to “find” the viable and profitable franchisor to begin with in the only ways that are now possible for prospective franchisees.
I know you are conscientious as to those franchises that you recommend on your other Web Site —-although you still have to disclaim any actual recommendation as to the possibilities of success — in view of the fact that “new” franchisors are allowed to “overseed” under federal regulatory policy in an effort to get a successful chain up and running, and there is “no proof of the pudding” until the pudding sets!
It’s all a matter of “power” in the long run and YOU do give power to franchisees when you give them the power of free speech in your UNHAPPY FRANCHISEES section of Franchise Pick.
You are a competitor of Blue Mau Mau in a sense and maybe this is why they came down on you and implied that there were personal reasons for your hard criticism of the AAFD? Blue Mau Mau wants to be the “reputational” reference in the franchise community.
Looking in from the outside —but could this be correct?
Carol
sean
Aug 14, 2008 at 11:59 am
You are a competitor of Blue Mau Mau in a sense and maybe this is why they came down on you and implied that there were personal reasons for your hard criticism of the AAFD? Blue Mau Mau wants to be the “reputational” reference in the franchise community.
Looking in from the outside —but could this be correct?
What I really like about blogging is that it’s a collaborative system and - like franchising when done right - rewards collaboration and commitment to shared success. While it might not be apparent to visitors, Blue Mau Mau and Franchise Pick are not competitors in the least; we both benefit from references back and forth, cross links, etc. and the dialogue between helps us both in the search engines.
We also have two very different audiences and two different approaches to what we’re doing. I’m a big fan of Blue Mau Mau and have a world of respect for Don Sniegowski. I find I can only dive in there for a while then need to take a break.
I think that there’s a remarkable lack of fresh thinking in the franchise industry. It’s a very insular world and people have trouble understanding a new approach. Other people don’t want a new approach… all the systems are set up for the current paradigm and for many it’s humming along quite nicely.
I’m just a marketing guy asking lots of questions. I’m not handing out fair franchising awards and singing duets with Ponzi’s Coffee.
Have an opinion? Leave a comment: