Everybody sticking up for ray Kroc, saying that he did nothing wrong. What about the hand shake promise of royalties that he never went through with. It was a straight up lie and jerked them out of hundreds of millions
shareThat was only one of his *beep* characteristics. Unless they made it up for the movie?
shareThat was one of a few underhanded things that he did, but royalties to mcdonalds are so huge a scale that they were unimaginable, and the brothers seemed naive and almost submissive in relying on handshake.
shareThe McDonald's brothers were in a tough situation. They clearly wanted to be done with Kroc and if they turned down that offer they may never have seen even the 2.7 million payoff afterwards. They might've been forced to sell for far less then even that much. At worst they could've been stuck in court for years paying legal feees.
shareThat is messed up.
Lose the Game!!!!!!!
True but I guess that's what happens when you want to think small. If they thought big like Kroc, who knows, they could have been partners, but of course, they just wanted to stay small and own 2 or 3 locations. Them getting screwed over was eventually going to happen, it's only logical. If you want to hold back the one man that made your restaurant a recognized nationwide sensation, I don't think you deserve any sort of a cut or royalty.
shareYou're rationalizing
shareHow? If it's 100% true how it happened in the movie then they deseved it.
shareYou are excusing Kroc for his immoral, unethical behavior. So, because the McDonalds thought small they should have expected Kroc to run over them.. That's like saying a woman who wears a short skirt should expect to be abused.
shareWell of course, but that's if we're talking about them actually being interested far more than the milkshake contraption, which they WERE. They knew right then and there that this would lead into some kind of partnership. They were aware of that and yeah Ray Kroc might have taken advantage of them, but it was for the better. If not for Ray Kroc, McDonald's would be another cheap diner like restaurant such as The Egg Shack (making up names here as an example of course). He grew that franchise by himself and the McDonald's brothers just wouldn't budge, they were too stubborn and life screwed them over. Sh*it happens. By the way, that's a horrible analogy. Something like "If you really want to get that rock hard body and chiseled jawline, expect to sweat, cry and get angry. Losing weight isn't a simple 1,2,3. You're screwed if you think you'll lose 50 pounds in a day or 2" makes more sense.
shareThey anticipated Kroc would take liberties so they drafted a tightly controlled contract. What they didn't anticipate was the real estate venture that gave Kroc(not the legal right)but the leverage to unethically wrestle away control of the franchising.The fact that but not for Kroc's involvement mcDonalds would have remained insignificant is irrelevant to Kroc's behavior. You are asserting the end justifies the means. I doubt either the McDonalds or anyone with a dose of principles would agree with you.
shareThat's just the way I see it. Clearly we both have different views on this event.
shareThanks for your response.
shareI'm a general practice attorney and I almost laughed out loud at the scene. How many times have I heard a prospective client tell me, "My father did everything on a handshake?"
The response I want to give is, "Your father was a damn fool." My more guarded response is, "Have you ever seen a lawyer's office with a lot of books behind him with the same binding? Do you know what is in those books? The story of two people who agreed to something on a handshake. Except A thought it meant X, and B thought it meant Y."
You're not wrong, but I think you're being a bit generous with the "A thought it meant X" line of reasoning, unless you by that you mean "A thought it meant X, and B was planning on never doing X."
shareYeah, but also that scene took place in like 1970, people probably were more reliable with handshakes cuz communities were smaller, etc...
Comfort the disturbed and disturb the comfortable
people may have been more reliable however once they were represented by attorneys, the attorneys could be liable for negligence if they permitted their client to rely on a handshake,,,from anyone. If a client attempted to be that cavalier the attorney would have prepared a cover his ass letter that the client would have to execute relieving the attorney from any potential liability.
shareYeah, but they didn't hire a lawyer for whatever reason during that handshake, we weren't talking about that and everyone here in 2017 knows handshakes aren't legally binding. We're talking about a scene that recreates what happened in 1970, what's more interesting than laughing at people is trying to understand their perspective. The lawyer above and many others are saying that people are basically just dumb, but obviously handshakes had become a social convention in the past most likely based around some historical precedents or events.
Comfort the disturbed and disturb the comfortable
"Handshakes" are legally binding agreements. The only problem is when disputes arise it's difficult to pin down exactly what was agreed to if there is no real evidence.
shareA handshake agreement would be an example of an oral contract, which are nor always enforceable. There are certain types of agreements that must be reduced to writing to be binding..
shareThere was nothing unethical about the real estate business. The brothers had nothing to do with who franchisees rented their lot from.
shareThat's like saying a woman who wears a short skirt should expect to be abused. She should because it's immoral and unethical behavior to dress skankly.
shareYes it is... but a person who agrees to a handshake deal is a *beep* idiot... but they had no choice, it was too late, there was no way they could win. And this, like most stories in movies, was a greatly condensed version of their negotiations.
i find that profoundly cynical. as it turns out, they couldn't trust their contract, either, which Kroc blithely ignored. he quite rightly pointed out that since he could outspend them in the courts they were going to lose no matter what. this doesn't mean they were idiots. as you point out they had no choice.
shareYes it is... but a person who agrees to a handshake deal is a *beep* idiot... but they had no choice, it was too late, there was no way they could win. And this, like most stories in movies, was a greatly condensed version of their negotiations.
I agree with you. Ray Kroc is unethical for not honoring his handshake deal with the McDonalds brothers.
Unethical businessmen are the main ingredients for disasters like Enron and the global recession.
He was wrong for not living up to his 1% handshake, but there was a time when Kroc was running around working super hard to expand the franchise and he was only breaking even. Then when he phoned the McBros, who just had to sit in their store the entire time, they absolutely refused to re-negotiate anything or accept any of the many cost-saving ideas he had so he could at least turn a profit, which seems kind of immoral on their part. The difficulty is which side was worse? Maybe it was Kroc overall, but the McBros weren't totally innocent.
Comfort the disturbed and disturb the comfortable
Yah exactly. Those bros were never going to expand successfully, and the $1M in the 50s (AFTER tax) that Kroc made for them was FAR more than they'd ever do selling f'ing burgers at $0.15 back then.
Eventually someone else would've figured out their system and just put in an establishment like the McDonalds that Kroc put in across the street from them lol.
See this is a good conversation ! And imdb is going to bank us from this! If this happens I'm going protest the site that let trolls win
shareyou are rationalizing. Kroc's original deal THAT HE NEGOTIATED apparently was not profitable for him, despite his hard work. So what! The McDonalds were not legally, morally or ethically to renegotiate the deal. On the other hand, although underhanded, Kroc, with the help of the financial analyst, was able to devise another method to obtain leverage to free himself from the original deal.
shareThe McDonalds were not legally, morally or ethically to renegotiate the deal.