Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies	5. Contingencies In March 2013, we entered into a Settlement Agreement with the State of California Department of Business Oversight (the "DBO") regarding allegations of inaccurate and incomplete disclosures in our 2010 and 2011 franchise disclosure documents. Without admitting or denying the allegations, we agreed to the entry of an order that, among other things, required us to desist and refrain from making material misrepresentations or omissions in franchise registration applications filed with the DBO and extend a one-time offer of rescission (refund of initial fees and repurchase of vending machines at depreciated value) to all of our franchisees in California. Of the 13 franchisees offered rescission, nine declined the offer, two accepted and two filed lawsuits against us seeking rescission, both of which were subsequently settled. In February 2014 the DBO delivered a "Notice of Intention to Issue Stop Order and Stop Order Denying Effectiveness of Franchise Registration Application" alleging that we had sold franchises to three of the 13 franchisees described above during August and September 2012, when we were not registered to do so. Of those three, two accepted and one declined our offer of rescission. In connection with the two rescissions that were accepted, the Company remitted a total of $139,000 to the franchisees. On April 2, 2014 the DBO issued a "First Amended Statement of Issues in Support of Stop Order and Stop Order Denying Effectiveness of Franchise Registration Application". The April stop order prohibited us from selling franchises in California until February 28, 2016, or until further order of the Commissioner. On November 7, 2014 the DBO issued a Stop Order and Citation (the "Stop Order") and the Company entered into a settlement agreement with the DBO. The Stop Order prohibits us from selling franchises in the state of California until November 7, 2016. The DBO found that we engaged in offers and sales of franchises in California without registration with respect to the three franchise sales we made in August and September 2012, that the sale of 15 franchises that occurred outside the state of California between March 2014 and May 2014 were made pursuant to a franchise disclosure document that contained omissions of material facts by failing to disclose the DBO's prior stop order and the statement of charges and notice of intent to enter an order to cease and desist issued by the state of Washington, and that our prior management failed to exercise due diligence with regard to our registration and disclosure obligations. The DBO also denied our registration application filed in California on October 3, 2013. In connection with the Stop Order, we paid administrative penalties of $37,500 and legal fees of $18,200 and offered rescission and restitution to the 15 franchisees that purchased franchises between March 2014 and May 2014. Of the 15 franchisees offered rescission, nine franchisees accepted and six franchisees rejected our rescission offer. As of March 31, 2015, the Company has remitted full and partial payments of $494,282 to seven of the franchisees and the remaining liability to five of the franchisees aggregating $436,186, is included in provision for franchisee rescissions and refunds in the accompanying balance sheet. Furthermore, the Company has recorded an additional $184,250 in provision for franchisee rescissions and refunds related to other existing and potential refunds. Pursuant to the terms of the Stop Order, we also developed and implemented a compliance program and engaged an independent monitor for the duration of the Stop Order to review and report to the DBO our franchise compliance activities, including compliance with the Stop Order. Our Company is subject to certain other state franchise registration and relationship laws, rules and regulations. Any violation of these laws, rules or regulations could result in our Company being fined or prohibited from offering and selling franchises in the state. Periodically we are contacted by other state franchise regulatory authorities and in some cases have been required to respond to inquiries or make changes to our franchise disclosure documents or franchise offer and sale practices. Management believes these communications from state regulators and corresponding changes in our franchise disclosure documents and practices are administrative in nature and do not indicate the presence of a loss or probable potential loss. See Part II, Item 1 ("Legal Proceedings") of the Company's Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2015 of which these Financial Statements form a part thereof. In June 2014, Seaga Manufacturing, Inc. ("Seaga") filed a complaint alleging that the Company had breached its agreement with Seaga by failing to purchase certain minimum quantities of automatic merchandising equipment and related parts. The complaint seeks damages in the amount of $3.3 million. In September 2014, the Company filed an answer, affirmative defenses and counterclaims and intends to vigorously defend this action. The parties are currently conducting discovery. Although it is too early for management to make an assessment of this claim, we do not believe that the ultimate resolution will have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position or results of operations. The Company is also subject to normal and routine litigation and other legal actions by current or former franchisees, employees, and vendors. We assess contingencies to determine the degree of probability and range of possible loss for potential accrual in its financial statements. An estimated loss contingency is accrued in the financial statements if it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Because litigation is inherently unpredictable and unfavorable resolutions could occur, assessing contingencies is highly subjective and requires judgments about future events. The Company regularly reviews contingencies to determine the adequacy of the accruals and related disclosures. The amount of ultimate loss may differ from these estimates. Although we currently believe that the ultimate outcome of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on the results of operations, liquidity or financial position of the Company, it is possible they could be materially affected in any particular future reporting period by the unfavorable resolution of one or more of these matters or contingencies.

5. Contingencies

In March 2013, we entered into a Settlement Agreement with the State of California Department of Business Oversight (the "DBO") regarding allegations of inaccurate and incomplete disclosures in our 2010 and 2011 franchise disclosure documents. Without admitting or denying the allegations, we agreed to the entry of an order that, among other things, required us to desist and refrain from making material misrepresentations or omissions in franchise registration applications filed with the DBO and extend a one-time offer of rescission (refund of initial fees and repurchase of vending machines at depreciated value) to all of our franchisees in California. Of the 13 franchisees offered rescission, nine declined the offer, two accepted and two filed lawsuits against us seeking rescission, both of which were subsequently settled. In February 2014 the DBO delivered a "Notice of Intention to Issue Stop Order and Stop Order Denying Effectiveness of Franchise Registration Application" alleging that we had sold franchises to three of the 13 franchisees described above during August and September 2012, when we were not registered to do so. Of those three, two accepted and one declined our offer of rescission. In connection with the two rescissions that were accepted, the Company remitted a total of $139,000 to the franchisees.

On April 2, 2014 the DBO issued a "First Amended Statement of Issues in Support of Stop Order and Stop Order Denying Effectiveness of Franchise Registration Application". The April stop order prohibited us from selling franchises in California until February 28, 2016, or until further order of the Commissioner.

On November 7, 2014 the DBO issued a Stop Order and Citation (the "Stop Order") and the Company entered into a settlement agreement with the DBO. The Stop Order prohibits us from selling franchises in the state of California until November 7, 2016. The DBO found that we engaged in offers and sales of franchises in California without registration with respect to the three franchise sales we made in August and September 2012, that the sale of 15 franchises that occurred outside the state of California between March 2014 and May 2014 were made pursuant to a franchise disclosure document that contained omissions of material facts by failing to disclose the DBO's prior stop order and the statement of charges and notice of intent to enter an order to cease and desist issued by the state of Washington, and that our prior management failed to exercise due diligence with regard to our registration and disclosure obligations. The DBO also denied our registration application filed in California on October 3, 2013. In connection with the Stop Order, we paid administrative penalties of $37,500 and legal fees of $18,200 and offered rescission and restitution to the 15 franchisees that purchased franchises between March 2014 and May 2014. Of the 15 franchisees offered rescission, nine franchisees accepted and six franchisees rejected our rescission offer. As of March 31, 2015, the Company has remitted full and partial payments of $494,282 to seven of the franchisees and the remaining liability to five of the franchisees aggregating $436,186, is included in provision for franchisee rescissions and refunds in the accompanying balance sheet. Furthermore, the Company has recorded an additional $184,250 in provision for franchisee rescissions and refunds related to other existing and potential refunds. Pursuant to the terms of the Stop Order, we also developed and implemented a compliance program and engaged an independent monitor for the duration of the Stop Order to review and report to the DBO our franchise compliance activities, including compliance with the Stop Order.

Our Company is subject to certain other state franchise registration and relationship laws, rules and regulations. Any violation of these laws, rules or regulations could result in our Company being fined or prohibited from offering and selling franchises in the state. Periodically we are contacted by other state franchise regulatory authorities and in some cases have been required to respond to inquiries or make changes to our franchise disclosure documents or franchise offer and sale practices. Management believes these communications from state regulators and corresponding changes in our franchise disclosure documents and practices are administrative in nature and do not indicate the presence of a loss or probable potential loss. See Part II, Item 1 ("Legal Proceedings") of the Company's Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2015 of which these Financial Statements form a part thereof.

In June 2014, Seaga Manufacturing, Inc. ("Seaga") filed a complaint alleging that the Company had breached its agreement with Seaga by failing to purchase certain minimum quantities of automatic merchandising equipment and related parts. The complaint seeks damages in the amount of $3.3 million. In September 2014, the Company filed an answer, affirmative defenses and counterclaims and intends to vigorously defend this action. The parties are currently conducting discovery. Although it is too early for management to make an assessment of this claim, we do not believe that the ultimate resolution will have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position or results of operations.

The Company is also subject to normal and routine litigation and other legal actions by current or former franchisees, employees, and vendors. We assess contingencies to determine the degree of probability and range of possible loss for potential accrual in its financial statements. An estimated loss contingency is accrued in the financial statements if it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Because litigation is inherently unpredictable and unfavorable resolutions could occur, assessing contingencies is highly subjective and requires judgments about future events. The Company regularly reviews contingencies to determine the adequacy of the accruals and related disclosures. The amount of ultimate loss may differ from these estimates.

Although we currently believe that the ultimate outcome of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on the results of operations, liquidity or financial position of the Company, it is possible they could be materially affected in any particular future reporting period by the unfavorable resolution of one or more of these matters or contingencies.