Top

WIRELESS TOYZ: Joe Barbat Claims Lazy Franchisees Have Selves to Blame

February 18, 2010

Joe Barbat claims that Wireless Toyz franchise investors have themselves to blame for their failures.


According to a  Local 4 Defenders video report posted on Click On Detroit, the Wireless Toyz founder accused of fraud said that if the franchisees suing him had worked as hard as he had, they’d be rich, too.  Barbat’s allegedly banked $13 Million on the Wireless toyz franchise chain he founded.

Check out the Local 4 Defenders video:  Wireless Toyz Founder Goes On Trial.

Read and discuss the Joe Barbat, Wireless Toyz lawsuits here:  WIRELESS TOYZ: Joe Barbat Boasts Victory in Franchise Lawsuit

  WIRELESS TOYZ: Joe Barbat Fraud Trials

Here’s an earlier video from the Local 4 Defenders that gives an overview of the charges and allegations against Joe Barbat & Wireless Toyz:

Are Wireless Toyz franchisees victims of deception or lazy entrepreneurs looking for someone to blame for their lack of initiative?

That’s what the courts are trying to decide.  Share your opinion… and stay tuned.

ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH JOE BARBAT & WIRELESS TOYZ?  WHAT DO YOU THINK?  SHARE A COMMENT BELOW.

Comments

9 Responses to “WIRELESS TOYZ: Joe Barbat Claims Lazy Franchisees Have Selves to Blame”

  1. swindled says:

    I was one of the franchisees who was swindled and cheated by these crooks. Like most others I ran my locations by the book with outstanding performance reviews and meticulous care. You can’t overcome the fact that facts and finances were misrepresented and doomed us to failure. This franchise cannot support it’s own “multi carrier” business model .

  2. [...] WIRELESS TOYZ: Joe Barbat Claims Lazy Franchisees Have Selves to Blame,  [...]

  3. Dave Thompson says:

    This business didn’t do anything wrong. It isn’t surprising that people who give an effort and fail in business seek out someone else to blame.

  4. Kim says:

    Finally a business willing to stick up for itself.

  5. Guest says:

    “Finally a business willing to stick up for itself.”

    Yes, Kim, finally! How unusual it is for a business to defend itself when it gets sued!

    What are you saying that all those other businesses do? They don’t stick up for themselves?

    “This business didn’t do anything wrong. ”

    That’s not why the franchisees’ lost. It’s my understanding that in the end the one-sided legal contracts simply overpowered justice.

  6. Kim says:

    The other businesses did stick up for themselves but the court ruled differently.

  7. Kim says:

    In fact, here is what the court said [T]he Court finds that under Michigan law, the merger/integration clauses and signed acknowledgements are valid, binding and enforceable, and bar Plaintiffs’ claim, which is based upon alleged extra-contractual and oral misrepresentations and omissions, as a matter of law…. [T]he testimonial evidence demonstrates that Plaintiffs acknowledged and understood the significance and legal effect of the merger/integration and signed acknowledgements.

  8. Fran says:

    Kim, the defendants did correctly argue that the evidence adduced at trial established that Plaintiffs were not defrauded or mislead.

  9. guest says:

    Regardless of the outcome of this trial, the number of franchisees who have sued Wireless Toyz and Joe Barbat are a warning sign. Seems like they really piss off a lot of people for such a small chain.

    What’s their problem? If Wireless Toyz does nothing wrong, are they just really really lousy at selecting franchisees? Or are they just really lousy at maintaining good franchise relations?

    It’s laughable when franchisors complain that their franchisees are whiners who won’t take responsibility for their own failures. If that’s true, why’d the franchise company select them and take their money in the first place?

SHARE A COMMENT HERE:





Bottom