Edible Arrangements, a gift retailer that delivers fresh fruit arrangements and chocolate dipped fruit to business and residential areas, claims its franchise opportunity is The Freshest Idea in Franchising®.
“Edible Arrangements® helps people around the world celebrate the times of their lives by training and supporting talented franchisees who provide beautifully arranged, natural, healthy food that makes occasions special.”
However, a recent rise in complaints about the Edible Arrangements franchise may indicate that the sweet franchise deal may be going sour for franchisees.
Are you familiar with the Edible Arrangements franchise? If so, please share a comment below.
On ComplaintsBoard, 4/29/10 Unhappy Edible Arrangements Owner wrote:
DO NOT BUY THIS FRANCHISE!!! THEY ARE LIARS AND MANIPULATORS!
We currently have 35 stores closed down due to corporate continuing to take more money from us all. Every franchisee worries that they will lose their stores due to corporate greed. They currently take 7% plus another 4% for tv advertising which they contribute nothing to. They put out coupons and do not refund the money back to the stores that accept them. They have now released new hours mandating we have to be open on Sundays, however they allow Jewish owned stores to be closed on Saturday and Muslim owned stores to be closed Friday. Christian owned stores are told they have to be open on Sunday…NO EXCEPTIONS will be made. This is Religious Discrimination!
Corporate does not care about their franchisees at all. Due to their greed and the franchisees concern for their investments 120 stores have entered into a lawsuit against them. These guys will stop at nothing to get you to invest in their concept and then shut you down so they can buy your store on the cheap and then resale it a 3 times what they paid for it. They will take your delivery areas away from you and give them to another store which is either a corporate owned store or the owner is related to the CEO.
Again, SAVE YOUR MONEY!!! Find a franchise that cares about the owners that make it successful! As an owner you will work 60 plus hours and you will not be able to pull a check unless you get rid of all your staff. Sadly, you will tell corporate your problem and they will just blame it on your fruit expense and not on all the rebates they get for you purchasing your product through their supplier. Cost of goods has yet to go down over the past 5 years and we have added 700 stores. The reason why is due to them wanting to continue the rebate and not passing the savings down to the store owners.
SAVE YOUR MONEY, FIND ANOTHER FRANCHISE, ONLY BUY FROM US AND SAVE YOURSELF THE HEADACHE OF OWING ONE.
On Franchisee Law Blog, July 27, 2010, Edible Arrangements franchise owner Tom Downes wrote:
I am a franchisee of Edible Arrangements… At first the CEO told us that we were critical pieces of the entire franchise system. He was right at the time, we were store #59 and the franchisor gave us much latitude as we built our business to break even and small profit after 2 long years and more infusion of capital. Now, 5 years later all that has changed and the CEO/founder does not care if franchisees make money, he has followed the familiar template offered by IFA* and Michael Seidman** [sic]. Get to a critical mass of stores and start implementing dictatorial measures to extract as much money from their franchisees as possible by mandating capital expenditures for “upgrades” and increasing material costs through vendors.
By the way, the franchisor has established distribution companies that you are mandated to buy all these materials from, adding more money to his cash flows. The franchisor is taught to create as much cash flow into the parent company so that when he sells his company, he will maximize the price. Also, the franchise agreement stipulates that any dispute is dealt with by arbitration only in Connecticut.
On a domain name discussion blog on July 29th, 2010 Edible Franchisee wrote:
Tariq Farid (CEO Edible Arrangements) tries to use the American Legal system to his advantage at every turn. He is a dishonest, unethical criminal who tries to hind behind his so called religious faith. He tries to build a mosque in the middle of a residential neighborhood in CT and when the neighbors cry foul, he claims that his religious freedoms are being trampled by a ‘Sad Agenda” against islam. He continually rapes his franchisees with new fees, mandatory purchases from vendors he owns and unreasonable and unsustainable business models. As EA staores are closing all across the country, he claims the system has never been stronger. He is a snake oil saleman, its as simple as that.
Are you familiar with the Edible Arrangements franchise? If so, please share a comment below.
* International Franchise Association, a trade and lobbying group representing the political and economic interests of, primarily, franchisors.
** Michael Seid, a pro-franchisor consultant heavily involved with the IFA
Recent developments have left franchisees worried and uncertain about their futures. To advocate for greater…
The Building Kidz Worldwide franchise is an opportunity to own a preschool & childcare center…
PAINT NAIL BAR has undergone some significant changes since franchisees contacted us with their complaints,…
U.S. Veterans magazine has removed JDog Brands as its #1 "Best Franchises for Veterans" list.…
More than 400 Veterans & military families who invested in JDog Brands franchises have failed,…
Genevieve McDaniel is a former franchisee turned franchise researcher, franchisee advocate, advisor and fiercely honest…
View Comments
This disgusting man does everything illegal!!He Brought his mistress to the US from Pakistan. She (Asma Rauf) was brought here illegally by making her, the vice president of netsolace from being a secatary. He gave her millions and put them in her account and that is why these poor employes get nothing. He gives money under the table so that he wont have to pay taxes. He tries to make an image of himself as a good religious person by making a mosque. He curses at AMERICANS and their ways, when he himself is supposedly American fallowing the American dream. He used to abuse his wife and kids, that he is dragging so that they get no money. Thinking that his money allowed him to be powerful just as he threatens him employes. Im amazed the government hasn't said or done anything about all the illegal things that he is doing. His father is 65 and married a 27 year old women after Tariqs money hungry mother died. His whole family is disgusting, like his father who took advantage of young women who is divorced and had no where to go. All the money that deserves to go to the people who work for him for hours goes to his gold digging family. I think someone should report this illegal man to the FBI
I have known the Farid's family for a long time and they are not all the same. Currently Tariq and Kamron Farid are the only owners of the Edible Arrangements. Tariq's other brothers hate him for the same reason most franchisees hate him. Even the Muslim community that Tariq claims is helping don't have nice things to say about him.
Tariq farid was caught in a lie. Tariq had two wives at one time and tried to lie to the court that he was divorced three years earlier in Pakistan. Tariq Farid's ex-wife proved that she never traveled to Pakistan in the year Tariq claims he divorced her. In fact she hasn’t traveled to Pakistan for the past five or six years. Tariq bribed Pakistan’s official to get false divorce documents so he wouldn't get in trouble for polygamy and he wouldn’t have to his wealth with his three daughters and ex-wife.
Yasmeen Farid v. Tariq Farid
Yasmeen Farid v. Tariq Farid
FA094011049S
-- September 10, 2010
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS
The defendant has moved to dismiss the above action, pursuant to Practice Book § 10-30, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Evidence was presented concerning this motion on August 9, 2010.
BACKGROUND
On February 1, 2009, the plaintiff, Yasmeen Farid, commenced the present divorce action by service of process on the defendant, Tariq Farid. In her complaint, the plaintiff alleged the following facts. The two parties were intermarried on September 8, 1991 in Sahiwal, Pakistan. One of the parties to this marriage has been a resident of Connecticut for at least twelve months preceding the date of the filing of this complaint. The marriage of the parties has broken down irretrievably, wherefore, the plaintiff claims: (1) a dissolution of the marriage, (2) orders concerning child custody and visitation, (3) an equitable division of the marital income, (4) an equitable division or assignment of the marital property and debt, (5) alimony, (6) restoration of her maiden name to Aslam, and (7) such other equitable relief as the court deems just and proper.
On February 23, 2009, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss, and memorandum of law in support thereof, on the ground that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because a marriage does not exist between the plaintiff and the defendant. In his memorandum of law, the defendant argues that he initiated divorce proceedings against the plaintiff in Pakistan on December 31, 2007, which were finalized on October 3, 2008. The defendant contends that he was personally present in Pakistan for the proceedings and that the plaintiff consented to the Pakistani court's exercise of jurisdiction over the marriage.
FINDINGS AND LAW
The defendant initiated divorce proceedings against the plaintiff in Pakistan on December 31, 2007. At that time, the plaintiff was residing in Connecticut with the couple's three minor children. The defendant's domicil was Connecticut, although, he did travel to Pakistan for business and family matters. The plaintiff denies ever receiving any paperwork associated with said filing. The defendant had no proof of notice of said proceedings to the plaintiff. The defendant gave the court, while filing the divorce petition, the address of the plaintiff's parents in Pakistan. The court finds the plaintiff did not receive notice of the divorce proceedings filed in Pakistan. The divorce decree obtained by the defendant in Pakistan did not address the custody of the children, child support, alimony or any property distribution of the parties.
“A valid divorce judgment is a judgment in rem and is binding on all the world as to the existence of a status which is the subject of the action, that is, the status of being unmarried upon the adjudication of divorce.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Vogel v. Sylvester, 148 Conn. 666, 670, 174 A.2d 122 (1961). “Courts of the United States [however] are not required by federal law to give full force and effect to a judgment granted in a foreign nation ․ On the other hand, judgments of courts of foreign countries are recognized in the United States because of the comity due to the courts and judgments of one nation from another. Such recognition is granted to foreign judgments with due regard to international duty and convenience, on the one hand, and to rights of citizens of the United States and others under the protection of its laws, on the other hand.” (Citations omitted.) Litvaitis v. Litvaitis, 162 Conn. 540, 544-45, 295 A.2d 519 (1972).1 “When so recognized, a decree of divorce granted in a foreign country will be given full force and effect not only as to the determination of the parties' status, but also with respect to alimony and child support.” Bruneau v. Bruneau, 3 Conn.App. 453, 455, 489 A.2d 1049 (1985). There are a number of exceptions, however, to a court's application of the principle of comity, most notably, lack of jurisdiction and denial of due process of law. See Litvaitis v. Litvaitis, supra, 545.
With regard to whether a court has jurisdiction, “[t]he traditional requisite for subject-matter jurisdiction in matrimonial proceedings has been domicil ․ Regardless of its validity in the nation awarding it, the courts of this country will not generally recognize a judgment of divorce rendered by the courts of a foreign nation as valid to terminate the existence of a marriage unless, by the standards of the jurisdiction in which recognition is sought, at least one of the spouses was a good faith domiciliary in the foreign nation at the time the decree was rendered.” (Citations omitted; emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 545-46.
“To constitute domicil, the residence at the place chosen for the domicil must be actual, and to the fact of residence there must be added the intention of remaining permanently; and that place is the domicil of the person in which he has voluntarily fixed his habitation, not for a mere temporary or special purpose, but with the present intention of making it his home ․” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Rice v. Rice, 134 Conn. 440, 445-46, 58 A.2d 523 (1948), aff'd, 336 U.S. 674, 69 S.Ct. 751, 93 L.Ed. 957 (1949). “[T]his intention must be to make a home in fact, and not an intention to acquire a domicil.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 447. “Where ․ it becomes highly advantageous to the claimant temporarily to feign an intention to become a resident for only a brief time, in order to accomplish other ends, his claim of intention will be scrutinized and weighed like any other evidence in the light of his conduct and all the circumstances surrounding it.” Id., 448. Moreover, “[a] person may have ․ only one domicil at any one time.” Smith v. Smith, 174 Conn. 434, 439, 389 A.2d 756 (1978). “[A] former domicil persists until a new one is acquired ․ Therefore proof of the acquisition of a new domicil of choice is not complete without evidence of an abandonment of the old.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Rice v. Rice, supra, 446.
In Litvaitis v. Litvaitis, supra, 162 Conn. 546, the seminal case concerning comity in foreign divorce decrees, our Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's refusal to recognize a Mexican divorce decree on the ground that the defendant was not a domiciliary of the Mexican state because he “went to Mexico solely for the purpose of securing a divorce and that he intended to return to Connecticut.” More recently, the Superior Court has noted that temporary residence does not constitute a change in domicil when there is no intent to remain. See Nirookh v. Aburabei, Superior Court, judicial district of New Haven at Meriden, Docket No. FA 09 4012235 (May 25, 2010, Burke, J.) [49 Conn. L. Rptr. 877] (concluding that defendant was not domiciliary of Jordan where defendant testified that he was looking for work in both Jordan and United Arab Emirates); see also Maklad v. Maklad, Superior Court, judicial district of New Haven, Docket No. FA 00 0443796 (January 3, 2001, Alander, J.) (28 Conn. L. Rptr. 593, 594) (“Given the defendant's strong ties to Connecticut and his written statement that his absence would be temporary, ․ the defendant did not intend to permanently reside in Egypt ․”).
A recent decision of the Superior Court has applied practical recognition for the limited purpose of recognizing a Mexican divorce decree without accepting the foreign court's orders related to financial settlements or child custody. See Hillis v. Hillis, Superior Court, judicial district of Stamford-Norwalk at Stamford, Docket No. FA 00 0179465 (February 19, 2003, Shay, J.) (34 Conn. L. Rptr. 232). In applying limited practical recognition, the court noted that “no credible evidence was introduced that the Mexican court had before it the financial affidavits of the parties, or other evidence of their finances, so as to enable it to inquire into the financial resources and actual needs of the parties, much less any evidence of their fitness as parents,” and that therefore, “the necessary full and searching inquiry was not conducted by the Mexican court.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 234.
With regard to whether a court has complied with the requirements of due process, “[i]t is the settled rule of [Connecticut], if indeed it may not be safely called an established principle of general jurisprudence, that no court will proceed to the adjudication of a matter involving conflicting rights and interests, until all persons directly concerned in the event have been actually or constructively notified of the pendency of the proceeding, and given reasonable opportunity to appear and be heard ․ It is fundamental in proper judicial administration that no matter shall be decided unless the parties have fair notice that it will be presented in sufficient time to prepare themselves upon the issue.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Hasbrouck v. Hasbrouck, 195 Conn. 558, 559-60, 489 A.2d 1022 (1985). “[T]he failure of a court to comply with this requirement of notice is a serious breach of a fundamental requirement of due process of law.” Winick v. Winick, 153 Conn. 294, 299, 216 A.2d 185 (1965). “In cases in which a divorce decree was issued in a foreign court without one party's knowledge or consent, Connecticut courts have refrained from recognizing the foreign divorce decree under comity.” Nirookh v. Aburabei, supra, Superior Court, Docket No. FA 09 4012235 (concluding that plaintiff was denied due process because she received notice of divorce decree after it had been rendered even though it had not yet been finalized); see Maklad v. Maklad, supra, 28 Conn. L. Rptr. 593; see also Jimenez v. Jimenez, Superior Court, judicial district of New Haven, Docket No. FA 06 4020114 (September 29, 2006, Frazzini, J.).
For the aforementioned reasons, the defendant's motion to dismiss is denied.
BY THE COURT
Brian T. Fischer, Judge
FOOTNOTES
1. FN1. “[W]here there has been opportunity for a full and fair trial abroad before a court of competent jurisdiction, conducting the trial upon regular proceedings, after due citation or voluntary appearance of the defendant, and under a system of jurisprudence likely to secure an impartial administration of justice between the citizens of its own country and those of other countries, and there is nothing to show either prejudice in the court or in the system of laws under which it was sitting, or fraud in procuring the judgment, or any other special reason why the comity of this nation should not allow it full effect, the merits of the case should not, in an action brought in this country upon the judgment, be tried afresh, as on a new trial or an appeal, upon the mere assertion of the party that the judgment was erroneous in law or in fact.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Yoder v. Yoder, 31 Conn.Sup. 344, 346, 330 A.2d 825 (1974).
Well, this blog is not about unhappy franchisees - it looks more like somebody is trying to insult the CEO of the company and sharing personal information about him.
I'd worked with Mr. Farid and i have utmost respect for him. I am very impressed by his work ethics and he is a perfectionist - and i believe that's why he is successful. Somebody has said so many bad things about him that i would like to share that Mr. Farid has set up a free hospital in Pakistan that gives away free medical facilities to the poor and hundreds of people are being benefited from this every day.
The man is a legend - and i believe bad comments are expected about legends anyways.
"Mr. Farid has set up a free hospital in Pakistan that gives away free medical facilities to the poor"
Where did the money to pay for that hospital come from, Mr. "Angel"? Let me help you: From the franchisees who took the risk and invested their life savings to build the Edible Arrangements chain. The franchisees bought the hospital that Mr. Farid wants to take credit for. Why not give credit where it's due?
"this blog is not about unhappy franchisees – it looks more like somebody is trying to insult the CEO of the company"
The unhappy EA franchisees aren't trying to insult Mr. Farid, they're suing him for unfair practices. You might want to read https://unhappyfranchisee.mystagingwebsite.com/edible-arrangements-franchisee-lawsuit-alleges-unfair-practices/
"The man is a legend – and i believe bad comments are expected about legends anyways"
Bernard Madoff is a legend, too. I guess bad comments are expected about legends who profit at the expense of others.
Steven,
When I first met Tariq, I was impressed with him and at that time I would have defended him just as you are. Just as people were impressed with Bernie Madoff not to suggest that Tariq is at the same level as Madoff.
Also if I was working for him just like you are; I probably won't have any problem with him. As long as you do what he tells you, you will get paid at the end of the week even if what he asked you to do made the company lose money. It is different with a franchisee, when we lose money he doesn’t because he gets his royalty on the gross sale. A store can have high gross sale but very little, or no profit.
Tariq continue to impose new tactics to increase gross sale which most franchisee will tell you are chopping away on their profits. Tariq only cares of his own pocket and is very greedy. He has lots of talent and can go much further faster if he only took care of the people under him.
Yes, Tariq has a free hospital in Pakistan, where going to a paid doctor cost about a $1 per visit. If he help 1000 people in Pakistan he would have donated about $1000. Which is pocket change for someone like him but he gets the bragging rights of helping more than one thousand people a month. I could find you many of people who make less than $100,000 a year who donate more than a $1000 a month. Tariq and Karman easily makes over $25 million a year but donates next to nothing out of their wealth but he is a legend.
Steve Angel,
Many people like me just read these comments and don't bother responding because I know people who don't know the whole story, like you, think we are just envious and jealous.
Tariq Farid stole the fruit arrangement idea from a company( Icredibly Edible Delites) who trusted him to install a POS system in their stores.
Incredibly Edible Delites, Now Fruit Flowers, have been making Edible fruit arrangement since 1984. Sixteen years before Tariq Farid started his Company.
Tariq Farid makes people work their asses off and don't compensate them at the end.
Is this your idea of a legend.
Steve Angel,
You don't know shit about Tariq, I would attack him personally because shopping away at our profit and constantly threatening us is personal. Him cutting our ability to make profit is pretty personal to me! I took out a mortgage on my house to invest in this company and it hurts that Tariq only cares of himself and don't give a damn if I lose my house. Tariq is a slick snake and a liar. I'm not going to go in detail but you should ask him where is his family and what do they all think of him.
I feel that personal attacks should be left off of the internet and kept in the courts. I own 2 stores and have been very successful. Although I don't always agree with what corporate does, I know could not have done this on my own. If Franchisees don't like what's going on they need to band together and approach corporate as a whole. Bad mouthing Tariq on these type of pages only hurts us as franchisees. He has made his millions so I don't think he really cares about your comments. You can do more by getting ALL of the franchisees to work as one in your goal for changes. Believe me I'm not happy with alot of things going on, but I'm working hard to make the best of it at this point.
I ONLY KNOW ONE THING .... IF I KNEW THEN WHAT I KNOW KNOW I NEVER WOULD HAVE PURCHASED THIS FRANCHISE. THEY WITHHELD INFO WHEN SIGNING MY AREA AND KNEW OF NEW SOFTWARE AND NEW STORE FRONTS THAT WERE GOING TO BE MANDATED BUT THEY STILL SOLD ME THE OLD STUFF AND THEN MANDATED THE PURCHASE OF THE NEW SOFTWARE AND STORE FRONT LESS THAN THREE MONTHS AFTER I OPENED VERY VERY MISLEADING. THEY WILL TELL YOU THEY DIDNT KNOW BUT EVEN AS I WAS IN MY FIRST WEEK WITH A CORPORATE TRAINER IN MY STORE HE KNEW AND TOLD ME THEN,,,, A LITTLE LATE AS HE WAS TRAINING ME ON AN OUTDATED SYSTEM. HA HA THE LAUGH WAS ON ME . THERE IS SO LITTLE PROFIT IN THESE FRANCHISES SAVE YOUR RETIREMENT MONEY FIND A AVON ROUTE