Can Krispy Kreme Legally 'Shut Down' Re-Sale Of Their Doughnuts?

[easyt65]

Because there was no Kispy Kreme business anywhere nearby, a Minnesota college student drove 270 miles to Clive, Iowa, every Saturday to buy up to 100 boxes of doughnuts, drive them back, and re-sell them to customers willing to pay $17 to $20 per dozen. Some customers reportedly paid Jayson Gonzales as much as $100 per doughnut run for the doughnuts. 'There has not been a Krispy Kreme outpost in Minnesota for 11 years, which prompted the high demand Gonzalez saw.'

Upon learning about this, Krispy Kreme sent Gonzales a letter telling him he had to 'shut down' his business because his side business was a 'liability' to Krispy Kreme. KK added, "We appreciate Jayson's passion for Krispy Kreme and his entrepreneurial spirit as he pursues his education."

1. So, was Gonzales breaking any law by re-selling the doughnuts be purchased? Did / Does KK have any legal leg to stand on in demanding Gonzales stop making these runs and re-selling the doughnuts?

IMO, if they did, Gonzales would have received an official, legal 'Cease and Desist' order instead of a corporate letter informing Gonzales that he 'had' to stop.

2. What 'Liability' was Gonzales' re-selling the doughnuts causing in a location where KK chose not to have a franchise?

If anything, IMO again, KK should reach out to Gonzales and THANK him for pointing out such a high-demand area for expansion, if not offering to give him part (if not total) ownership of his own KK franchise in the are in which he was re-selling their doughnuts!

What say YOU?


Krispy Kreme orders Minnesota student who bought, resold doughnuts to 'shut down operations'

.

 

[irosie91]

I have no idea-----the smart guy should look up a recipe for KRISPY KREME copy cats----and make his own ------

 

[Dick Foster]

Because there was no Kispy Kreme business anywhere nearby, a Minnesota college student drove 270 miles to Clive, Iowa, every Saturday to buy up to 100 boxes of doughnuts, drive them back, and re-sell them to customers willing to pay $17 to $20 per dozen. Some customers reportedly paid Jayson Gonzales as much as $100 per doughnut run for the doughnuts. 'There has not been a Krispy Kreme outpost in Minnesota for 11 years, which prompted the high demand Gonzalez saw.'

Upon learning about this, Krispy Kreme sent Gonzales a letter telling him he had to 'shut down' his business because his side business was a 'liability' to Krispy Kreme. KK added, "We appreciate Jayson's passion for Krispy Kreme and his entrepreneurial spirit as he pursues his education."

1. So, was Gonzales breaking any law by re-selling the doughnuts be purchased? Did / Does KK have any legal leg to stand on in demanding Gonzales stop making these runs and re-selling the doughnuts?

IMO, if they did, Gonzales would have received an official, legal 'Cease and Desist' order instead of a corporate letter informing Gonzales that he 'had' to stop.

2. What 'Liability' was Gonzales' re-selling the doughnuts causing in a location where KK chose not to have a franchise?

If anything, IMO again, KK should reach out to Gonzales and THANK him for pointing out such a high-demand area for expansion, if not offering to give him part (if not total) ownership of his own KK franchise in the are in which he was re-selling their doughnuts!

What say YOU?


Krispy Kreme orders Minnesota student who bought, resold doughnuts to 'shut down operations'

.

I agree with you. KK can either get off the dime or STFU. Their say so ended when he paid for and left the door with the doughnuts.

 

[iceberg]

i never thought they were that good to begin with. at least not drive 270 miles good and then to pay that much more for cold donuts?

but krispy kreme said it presented a liability to them. not sure how but i'm sure it's a legal thing i really don't want to understand. i'm just glad these rules were not in place in the 70s when i went to 6th grade with bags of candy to resell and make money for the pencil machine so i could have pencil wars.

those rubber-like pencils were a killer.

 

[JoeMoma]

KK should have simply left the dude alone. He's making about $1500 bucks a week without harming KK's markets at all.

 

[iceberg]

KK should have simply left the dude alone. He's making about $1500 bucks a week without harming KK's markets at all.

no idea if this is why, but if someone got sick or found a foreign object in a donut, who do they go after?

 

[MAGAman]

Because there was no Kispy Kreme business anywhere nearby, a Minnesota college student drove 270 miles to Clive, Iowa, every Saturday to buy up to 100 boxes of doughnuts, drive them back, and re-sell them to customers willing to pay $17 to $20 per dozen. Some customers reportedly paid Jayson Gonzales as much as $100 per doughnut run for the doughnuts. 'There has not been a Krispy Kreme outpost in Minnesota for 11 years, which prompted the high demand Gonzalez saw.'

Upon learning about this, Krispy Kreme sent Gonzales a letter telling him he had to 'shut down' his business because his side business was a 'liability' to Krispy Kreme. KK added, "We appreciate Jayson's passion for Krispy Kreme and his entrepreneurial spirit as he pursues his education."

1. So, was Gonzales breaking any law by re-selling the doughnuts be purchased? Did / Does KK have any legal leg to stand on in demanding Gonzales stop making these runs and re-selling the doughnuts?

IMO, if they did, Gonzales would have received an official, legal 'Cease and Desist' order instead of a corporate letter informing Gonzales that he 'had' to stop.

2. What 'Liability' was Gonzales' re-selling the doughnuts causing in a location where KK chose not to have a franchise?

If anything, IMO again, KK should reach out to Gonzales and THANK him for pointing out such a high-demand area for expansion, if not offering to give him part (if not total) ownership of his own KK franchise in the are in which he was re-selling their doughnuts!

What say YOU?


Krispy Kreme orders Minnesota student who bought, resold doughnuts to 'shut down operations'

.

The liability would be if the doughnuts were contaminated before they were resold.

Lawsuits always attack the deepest pockets, and even if they won the case it could cost $Millions.

OTOH

By selling this guy 100 boxes at a time, they are pretty much expecting this guy to resell them, and that probably makes them liable if he crosses the line and hits another car head on.

 

[airplanemechanic]

KK should have simply left the dude alone. He's making about $1500 bucks a week without harming KK's markets at all.

no idea if this is why, but if someone got sick or found a foreign object in a donut, who do they go after?

Um, the guy they bought the donut from?

As soon as you give your food to another person the original person who made it is no longer liable because they could claim YOU altered the food.

Same as a used car. You buy a car from me, turn around and re-sell it that car is not my problem anymore and the person you sold it to cannot come after me for anything wrong with it.

 

[JoeMoma]

KK should have simply left the dude alone. He's making about $1500 bucks a week without harming KK's markets at all.

no idea if this is why, but if someone got sick or found a foreign object in a donut, who do they go after?

Millions of KK donuts are purchased, transported, and given to other people. Liability for foreign objects in the donuts does not seem to be a problem.

 

[JoeMoma]

In my town, people often buy donuts from KK and resale them with KK 's blessing as part of fundraisers.

 

[Thunk]

KK knows that nobody is going to eat 100 boxes of donuts...so they have to stop it (unfortunately). It's a legal liability thing.

So all Speedy Gonzales has to do is set up some straw buyers.

10 people buy 10 boxes each & Speedy is back in business

 

[iceberg]

KK should have simply left the dude alone. He's making about $1500 bucks a week without harming KK's markets at all.

no idea if this is why, but if someone got sick or found a foreign object in a donut, who do they go after?

Um, the guy they bought the donut from?

As soon as you give your food to another person the original person who made it is no longer liable because they could claim YOU altered the food.

Same as a used car. You buy a car from me, turn around and re-sell it that car is not my problem anymore and the person you sold it to cannot come after me for anything wrong with it.

not sure i'd call it a used donut at that point. but like i said, i don't know the legal reasons but i'm sure this would be part of it. liablity for their product and the fact they didn't deliver it to said destination.

would gladly defer to a lawyer to see if i'm close.

 

[iceberg]

KK should have simply left the dude alone. He's making about $1500 bucks a week without harming KK's markets at all.

no idea if this is why, but if someone got sick or found a foreign object in a donut, who do they go after?

Millions of KK donuts are purchased, transported, and given to other people. Liability for foreign objects in the donuts does not seem to be a problem.

great. then i would be wrong if this is true. but do you know why KK said it presented them with a liability? which liability is being referenced?

 

[easyt65]

no idea if this is why, but if someone got sick or found a foreign object in a donut, who do they go after?

Common Sense would say the person who sold the doughnuts, as KK could say once the doughnuts left the shop they were no longer accountable.....but that's 'common sense'....and we're talking about a country / culture that awarded a moron millions for placing a hot cup of coffee between their legs and spilling it / burning THEMSELVES with it....



.

 

[JoeMoma]

KK should have simply left the dude alone. He's making about $1500 bucks a week without harming KK's markets at all.

no idea if this is why, but if someone got sick or found a foreign object in a donut, who do they go after?

Millions of KK donuts are purchased, transported, and given to other people. Liability for foreign objects in the donuts does not seem to be a problem.

great. then i would be wrong if this is true. but do you know why KK said it presented them with a liability? which liability is being referenced?

Probably simply a made up talking point to be able to give a reason to stop the dudes business.

 

[MAGAman]

KK should have simply left the dude alone. He's making about $1500 bucks a week without harming KK's markets at all.

no idea if this is why, but if someone got sick or found a foreign object in a donut, who do they go after?

Millions of KK donuts are purchased, transported, and given to other people. Liability for foreign objects in the donuts does not seem to be a problem.

I'm not a lawyer, but they have to have some reason to give up $1000s of dollars of sales on a regular basis.

I suspect it's different when you sell doughnuts to another company that has it's own liability insurance and an individual that probably does not.

My business resells items, and is required to have a level of liability insurance.

 

[MAGAman]

Probably simply a made up talking point to be able to give a reason to stop the dudes business.

Why?

They benefited from the dudes business.

 

[JoeMoma]

I would not be surprised if KK has corporate guidelines about who can be an official distributor of their product. It could be that someone else already has the rights to the sales territory in which the college dude was selling the donuts.

 

[JoeMoma]

Bottom line, we don't know. KK needs to clarify if we are to know.

 

[Dick Foster]

KK should have simply left the dude alone. He's making about $1500 bucks a week without harming KK's markets at all.

no idea if this is why, but if someone got sick or found a foreign object in a donut, who do they go after?

Um, the guy they bought the donut from?

As soon as you give your food to another person the original person who made it is no longer liable because they could claim YOU altered the food.

Same as a used car. You buy a car from me, turn around and re-sell it that car is not my problem anymore and the person you sold it to cannot come after me for anything wrong with it.

not sure i'd call it a used donut at that point. but like i said, i don't know the legal reasons but i'm sure this would be part of it. liablity for their product and the fact they didn't deliver it to said destination.

would gladly defer to a lawyer to see if i'm close.

I suppose "previously owned" would be more proper.