Legal Business Structures for a McDonald's Franchise
This paper examines the three legal business structures available to McDonald's franchisees: sole proprietorship, partnership, and corporation. It analyzes how each structure affects liability exposure, profit distribution, and operating costs, using the well-known McDonald's hot coffee lawsuit as a practical illustration of risk. The paper argues that incorporation offers franchisees the strongest personal asset protection, despite higher setup costs and reduced individual profit. It concludes by advising prospective franchisees to consult legal counsel, research McDonald's franchising requirements, and carefully weigh the trade-offs before committing to a business structure.
- Introduction to Franchise Business Structures: Defines sole proprietorship, partnership, and corporation options
- Liability Risk for Sole Proprietors and Partners: Hot coffee lawsuit illustrates personal liability exposure
- How Corporate Structure Limits Personal Liability: Corporation shields personal assets from franchise lawsuits
- Cost and Profit Trade-Offs of Incorporation: Higher setup costs reduce but justify corporate profit sharing
- Choosing the Right Structure and Next Steps: Advises legal consultation and research before franchising
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Uses a concrete, well-known real-world example — the McDonald's hot coffee lawsuit — to ground an otherwise abstract legal comparison in practical consequence.
- Maintains a clear evaluative stance throughout, consistently arguing that incorporation is the superior choice while fairly acknowledging its costs and limitations.
- Moves logically from defining each structure to demonstrating its real-world impact on a franchisee, making the analysis easy for a general audience to follow.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates applied comparative analysis: it takes three legal categories, subjects each to the same set of criteria (liability, profit, cost, and practicality), and arrives at a reasoned recommendation. Rather than treating the structures abstractly, the author anchors every comparison to the McDonald's franchising context, which keeps the argument focused and relevant.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens by defining the three business structures, then works through their liability implications using a lawsuit scenario as a case study. It follows with an analysis of corporate costs and profit trade-offs before closing with practical guidance on consulting lawyers and researching McDonald's requirements. The structure moves from definition → risk analysis → cost analysis → recommendation, a classic problem-solution arc suited to business writing.
Introduction to Franchise Business Structures
For a McDonald's franchisee, there are three options: the franchise can be operated as a sole proprietorship, a partnership, or a corporation. The real issue is not that options exist, but which option should be chosen. It is not always easy to make that determination, since many factors must be considered for each choice.
A sole proprietorship is operated by one person. That person is solely responsible for the business and faces no complex legal structure. He or she can reap all the profits and rewards, but also shoulders all the liability for any lawsuits or other problems that arise. In a partnership, profits and liabilities are shared between two people. There can be some adjustment as to which person bears more responsibility for specific issues, or it can be a completely 50-50 split of everything — both good and bad.
In a corporation, it is the corporation itself that receives the benefits and shoulders the liabilities. The corporation then pays the people running it. If the corporation is sued, only the assets of the corporation can be taken; the individuals will not lose their personal assets to creditors or to someone claiming negligence or another serious problem. McDonald's itself is a corporation, but franchisees have a choice as to what legal structure they wish to adopt.
Which structure should they pick? That decision ultimately rests with each individual who decides to open a franchise. However, it would appear that the most logical choice is for the franchisee to open under a corporate structure rather than as a sole proprietorship or partnership, because the other options carry simply too much personal risk.
Liability Risk for Sole Proprietors and Partners
In the past, there have been several lawsuits against McDonald's. The most notable involved a customer who sued because coffee was served at an extremely high temperature, resulting in burns. While many people considered the lawsuit frivolous, others agreed that McDonald's should have warned customers more clearly that the product could cause serious injury if spilled. There are many arguments about a company's duties and the common sense of consumers using its products.
Regardless of those arguments, the key question is what such a lawsuit would mean for a franchisee, depending on his or her legal business structure. When a sole proprietorship is sued, the single person who is the sole proprietor is personally being sued. He or she is the one accused of being at fault and must prove there was no liability in order to avoid paying damages to the injured party. The sole proprietor is the accused and the one who could lose everything. If the lawsuit succeeds, personal assets could be seized and a judgment placed against the proprietor if those assets are insufficient to cover the damages.
For someone in a partnership, the liability is simply split between two people, both of whom could have their personal assets taken and judgments placed against them. It is true that creditors cannot take what does not exist, but judgments can follow partners for the rest of their lives, preventing them from acquiring much of anything in the future. They could see tax refunds intercepted each year, and they may struggle to purchase a home or a car because their credit is damaged and lenders view them as a serious financial risk. This is not a position any businessperson wants to occupy, and a corporate structure can help protect personal interests from this outcome.
How Corporate Structure Limits Personal Liability
A franchisee who operates a McDonald's franchise as a corporation still carries risk. Corporations are not licenses to walk away free and clear when things go wrong. For example, it generally costs between $500,000 and $750,000 to invest in and be awarded a McDonald's franchise. McDonald's will not franchise to people or corporations that lack adequate capital. If something goes wrong, the corporation — and thus those owning and operating it — could easily lose that investment. If the corporation holds other assets, those too could be seized to pay debts or satisfy a legal judgment.
However, the key advantage of franchising as a corporation is this: liability is generally limited to the corporation itself. That means personal assets such as cars and homes are typically beyond the reach of creditors or plaintiffs. The law is complicated and exceptions exist, but overall a franchisee who owns his or her franchise as a corporation faces little genuine risk of personal liability arising solely from problems with the franchise operation. As explained in Cornell Law School's Legal Information Institute, the separation between corporate and personal liability is a foundational principle of corporate law. Corporations do not protect their owners one hundred percent, but they are widely regarded as the safer option — even though they also cost more to operate.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.