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.............
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.