From: PJSilver@aol.com

To: HQ.HQ02(franpr)

Date: 4/23/97 12:55pm

Subject: FTC Franchising Rule

To: FTC at FRANPR@ftc.gov.
Re: FTC Franchising Rule

From: Supercuts Franchisees: Doug Bell and Paul Silver

Date: April 23, 1997

As long term owners/operators of multiple Supercuts franchises we support deterrent and resolution mechanisms for problems that occur AFTER a franchise is bought.

The FTC needs to begin dealing with substantive issues of current franchisees that clearly violate the spirit of federal and state due process constitutional law. These include prohibiting franchisors from:

• devaluing of our my assets through encroachment/impact;
• requiring current, renewing and outgoing franchisees to sign general releases and waivers;
• requiring prospective and renewing franchisees to agree to the venue and applicable law of the franchisor's home state;
• requiring renewing franchisees to give up their rights to a jury trial or to punitive damages for reckless predatory behavior.
• requiring franchisees to sign contracts that contain integration clauses which specifically allow franchisors to avoid the Franchise Rule or state law; and
• requiring franchisees to sign post-term covenants not-to-compete.
• intimidating or retaliating against their franchisees, directly or indirectly, for getting together for any legitimate business purpose.

If the FTC cannot begin addressing the issues of current franchisees, then I am in favor of abolishing the Franchise Rule. If, as it seems, a person qualifies for protection from an overreaching and abusive franchisor only if you haven't bought a franchise, then the FTC Franchise Rule doesn't serve any useful purpose for current franchisees. In this age of deregulation, as a current franchisee and taxpayer, I would be in favor of eliminating the FTC Franchise Rule.

Sincerely,

Doug Bell
Supercuts Franchisee
Houston Texas
713 695-0888

Paul Silver
Supercuts Franchisee
Austin Texas
713 477-9904