“Does any principle in our law have more universal application than the doctrine that courts will not enforce transactions in which the relative positions of the parties are such that one has unconscionably taken advantage of the necessities of the other?…The law is not so primitive that it sanctions every injustice except brute force and downright fraud. More specifically, the courts generally refuse to lend themselves to the enforcement of a ‘bargain’ in which one party has unjustly taken advantage of the economic necessities of the other.” – Justice Felix Frankfurter (November 15, 1882 – February 22, 1965)
It would be difficult to find a business relationship to which such standards are more applicable than franchising. Although hundreds of different industries use franchising, certain common denominators exist. Variations are minor and do not affect the overall picture. The basic problem is a marked, intentional, and constantly emphasized disparity in the parties’ positions. The franchisor combines the roles of father, teacher, and drill sergeant, while the franchisee becomes son, pupil, and buck private. At the core of the relationship is the franchisor’s contractual control over every aspect of the franchisee’s business. Franchisors claim that so long as a franchisee has had an opportunity to study the agreement, perhaps with the advice of counsel, he should be bound by its terms. – Harold Brown
Taken from Franchising by Harold Brown First Edition 1981