Posted on 11/05/2019 10:18:16 AM PST by conservative98
Looks like Jayson Gonzalez is getting a sweet deal after all.
Krispy Kreme is reportedly giving the Minnesota college student 500 boxes of doughnuts after initially asking the 21-year-old to shut down his business of buying and reselling boxes of doughnuts.
[cut]
Krispy Kreme did not immediately respond to Fox News’ request for comment, but in a statement to Business Insider, the brand said that once it learned Gonzalez was putting the money he made from the doughnut sales toward his goal of graduating from college debt-free, the company wanted to help.
"Our main concern is that the doughnuts Jayson sells maintain our high product quality standards, given the distance and manner in which he is transporting and distributing them. So, we are happy to work with Jayson as an independent operator to ensure consistent delivery of our high-quality doughnuts to our fans in Minnesota," the chain said.
"We wish Jayson great success and we're thrilled to help him achieve it by donating 500 dozen doughnuts when he restarts his business."
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
This is the last time I am going to explain it to you so read carefully!
There is a difference between a seller purchasing a product for resale from the manufacturer which every wholesaler such as Krogers, Meijers, Dicks Sporting Goods, etc. does.
Are you following me here?
Using Krispy Kreme as an example along with Dunkin donuts, the only sales of these products are thru the franchise owners...........You got that so far?
Only the franchise owners are licensed to sell those donuts under the Franchise name
You got that so far? Good,
Now we get down to the major problem. The individual here was purchasing the KK's from a franchise owner then reselling them under the KK name in the KK boxes............
By doing so, he was not only profiting from the sales of these donuts at an elevated price but he was also circumventing the need of purchasing a legal KK franchise and sharing the profits of the sale of their donuts with the corporation.
You got it now?
So KK should have penalized its franchise owner who obviously knew what the kid was doing. Look, you dont need to be condescending. Answer my Levi’s in the warehouse question or tell me how its different from the KK case.
I've already presented my arguments which obviously make no sense to you. So go piss up a rope.............
I would argue that you misapply the Trademark law, but I am only having a discussion, not rudely telling you to piss up a rope.
From one source online:
Trademark law protects a company's goodwill, and helps consumers easily identify the source of the things they purchase.
In principle, trademark law, by preventing others from copying a source-identifying mark, reduces the customer's costs of shopping and making purchasing decisions, for it quickly and easily assures a potential customer that this item—the item with this mark—is made by the same producer as other similarly marked items that he or she liked (or disliked) in the past. At the same time, the law helps assure a producer that it (and not an imitating competitor) will reap the financial, reputation-related rewards associated with a desirable product. The law thereby encourages the production of quality products and simultaneously discourages those who hope to sell inferior products by capitalizing on a consumer's inability quickly to evaluate the quality of an item offered for sale.
So I dont see anything so far about re-selling authentic a legally purchased item. You do understand how you would criminalize 99% of the population by your standard.
Whatever the f’k you say dude........You da legal man!
So in fact you dont know what you are talking about. I am not a lawyer but I know that a legal argument in one case does not apply in every case. I asked you to think through a scenario and apply your own logic to it, and you fall back to ‘piss up a rope’. Personally I dont see why you cant present your argument politely and just say you dont know if you dont. I still learn things from discussion. No one learns anything from insults. Thanks for your service.
I did until it became apparent that I was dealing with a catalog lawyer who doesn't know that the hell he is talking about. Eventually one gets tired of such conversation and says to hell with it. You can't reason with stupid no matter how smart they think they are...........Now get lost.
I listened to your argument. But I also presented sincere counter argument/questions that you refuse to address. Now your behavior is unbecoming of both your service and your age. But I will leave you alone as you wish. And my thank you for your service was sincere. Sorry you cant accept that.
I think I am beginning to see how someone could get stabbed over a chicken sandwich...or donuts. It’s not just a ghetto thang.
The art of peaceful conversation/debate is becoming rare.
The only catch is that he has to eat all 500 donuts himself, in one sitting.
What this story is really about is the manager at the kid’s supply store that got in trouble for selling him the product.
Companies engage in this type of sales arbitrage all the time in order to unload inventory or spike sales commissions. It’s the basis of a tremendous gray market that exists across this country.
For example, P&G might run a promotion in Dallas on a certain size or flavor of Crest toothpaste, knowing full well that most of the product will be shipped across the country — or the world — by Dallas wholesalers and retailers who over-buy and resell to third parties who wouldn’t otherwise access that same product and price.
I knew a guy who was VP Sales of one of these companies who told me that he’d place hundreds of trucks at his factories at the end of each quarter in case he got word from the CEO that they needed a sales bump to make quarterly numbers. On the order, he’d ship it to clients across the country at generous prices and terms without purchase orders — just send it to them. (Henry Ford did the same thing, only on cash terms, when he needed to buy out his co-investors: he dumped product on his dealers and used them to finance his buyout).
Typical corporate b.s. This kid was just taking advantage of the donut arbitrage.
See my other reasons for shutting him down. One, he says he is running a business and calls it Krispy Kreme Minnesota. He has no respect for other people’s property. Then cries to the media when he doesn’t get his way. KK can shut him down for health code violations because he is calling himself KK.
I acknowledged the business name problem. But the rest I don’t think KK has much say in. He was being an entrepreneur. KK got their cut through his purchase. The point of resale was hours away where no KK franchise exists. Since KK has no control over resale, why would you think KK can shut him down for health reasons? Maybe the state but not KK. Health issues and Trademark issues are totally unrelated.
In my post 91 second half, I was asking about an entrepreneurial example involving resale of Levi jeans purchased at auction. So far no one has told me why I could profit off of such an investment. Maybe you can.
Could not...
If you live long enough, you will eventually have an anecdote for any topic. Here's mine.
Years ago I wanted some cinnamon roles while vacationing for a week in the mountains. I went to a small donut shop about four miles from the cabin and, seeing that they had six cinnamon roles that morning, I offered to buy them.
To my surprise, the operator of the business refused to sell them to me. Evidently he was concerned that he would end up disappointing some regular customers if he sold me all of his cinnamon roles.
The question here I think was whether or not advertising baked goods for sale constitute a legal offer or not. I think perhaps it does not. Barring some law involving outlawed discrimination, the baker was probably not obligated to sell product to anybody who enters his shop.
Obviously if I had offered to buy 1000 cinnamon roles the vendor would not even be capable of delivering such a quantity. That would make it seem that simply being in the business, advertising the goods, and having some inventory does not constitute a binding offer to sell. Otherwise my willingness to buy would have constituted an acceptance of an offer to sell and a contract would have existed between us that would seemingly be subject to legal enforcement.
The fact that the baker had the amount I wanted on hand might not change that. I was disappointed but I think the baker simply decided that he was better off not having me as a customer on such short notice.
This example would suggest the Krispy Kreme could withdraw any offer to sell to the college student in favor of other customers or limit the quantities to such as would discourage him from continuing his business.
The trademark issues would be much harder, I think, for Krispy Kreme to establish. If a survey of the student's customers showed that they understood the source of the goods, then that would greatly reduce the possibility that such a customer would consider Krispy Kreme liable for a condition over which KK had no control. If KK was responsible for some short-coming with the product, a jury would still be free to find KK liable.
Krispy Kreme did pretty well I think in finding a solution. The good will generated by the story probably exceeds greatly any likely lost profits or reputational risk.
Concur with your conclusion. Regarding the anecdote, I took a business law course in the eighties, don’t remember much of it, but do remember that a contract is not in force until an exchange has taken place, like money for goods or promised service. So a business can promise service, but if you dont provide something, even a small down payment of say, a dollar, it’s not really a legal contract yet. So I wouldn’t think advertising is sufficient to constitute the sellers end of a contract. Accepting payment would.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.