I am no lawyer and don't know exactly how all court cases work. I normally would not encourage anyone to read pt but I do think I will make an exception. I would love to hear more on everyone's take on this.
When deciding a jury, don't both lawyers have to agree on the jurors? It is amazing that because the verdict went against top that the jurors were all morons and the judge was paid off. Even if the judge was paid off, isn't it the jury that decides the outcome and then the judge sets the "punishment"?
My goodness tempers are flaring all over the place over on that site.
One of my hopes in this situation is that if directors, consultants, or nsd's know except for the 90% buyback from the Company that there will be no way to recoup your $$ except thru honest selling of the product that perhaps the directors that do frontload will stop for fear that they will just end up with a great big chargeback if the consultant can't sell the product and allow the ibc to build their inventory as they build their client base.
Posts
Im really curious to know how many directors are supplying the liquidators with product. This WILL stop frontloading IF this is the case. I cant promise it but I think that it will be interesting to see if it will make a difference on unit production.
ReplyDeleteI don't know...if it really is not illegal for TOP to buy those keywords, then how and why are they prosecuted for it? I also see no way that anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together would think that ToP was endorsed by MK when their website plainly stated that this is not the case. The only merit I can see this suit having is that they were (and I assume they actually were) selling products that had gone bad. All the rest of it seems like a scare tactic on the part of MK showing that they are the bigger bully with the deeper pockets and will plow under anyone who stands in opposition to them.
ReplyDeleteI still think that, by and large, the people who liquidated were those who were stuck with things that were beyond the rolling year, so they couldn't send it back but it was still not expired, or those who didn't want to quit MK but had a bunch of stuff that just plain would not sell and wanted to cut their losses on those items. You can say in retrospect "crap, I shouldn't have ordered those perfumes; hardly anyone buys them" but you don't know until you try, unless someone tells you...and they're probably not going to tell you. So, better to recoup some money than either throw the stuff away or leave it on your shelves until it does expire, and you'll have learned for next time what sort of things not to order until/unless you have a buyer for it.
If you have people who are buying prizes and then liquidating all that stock, the joke's on them because they are not breaking even much less making a profit. That right there is its own punishment.
I don't think TOP needs to be bashed into the ground. Telling them to not sell expired product is as far as it needs to go IMHO.
Personally, I feel sorry for consultants who have inventory they cannot sell who will have no recourse. Like someone else said (Miranda?), you do end up with some products you just can't get rid of because none of your customers like them. I know when my director ordered my first order (she insisted that I wouldn't know what to order), she ordered all kinds of holiday stuff (because it was November) and I couldn't get rid of it no matter what kind of sale I ran. After I quit MK, I sold it to ToP--thank goodness I at least had that recourse!
ReplyDeleteMy other complaint with being in MK was my director who, when I mentioned the buyback, said, "Oh, you have plenty of time. Give it another month, I'll try to help you sell it, and then you can sell what you have left back." Well, she knew that my first buyback date was the next week, so I was only able to sell back a much smaller amount. She said, "You should have kept track of the date." Yes, I should have; I shouldn't have trusted her. Nor did she help me to figure out other ways to sell it, and I had a ton of medical bills I was trying to pay off at the time, which was why I wanted to sell it back. I think it's this kind of thing that turns people off of MK. I realize that's not the whole company, but it does leave a bad taste in your mouth, you know?
I'm sorry to see ToP lose, because I don't know how others will recoup any money from leftover products.
Hi and Welcome Leftytoo2,
ReplyDeleteI am sorry this happened to you, and I mean that. I think I get even angrier at MK directors that operate like this than the pters bashing us that truley operate the way Mary Kay intended us to. But I still hope that they can shut down the liquidators and then MK cracks down on directors that misinform ibc's for their gain. The only problem is MK Corp needs to receive letters from these individuals - enough complaints and MK does "discuss" it with the party wronging others. So I encourage anyone that is being told bogus information to let the Company know. Complaining on a blog about an anon. director doesn't do anyone any good and of course after too much time, well, timely reporting to the Company.
I don't care for other directors making those that do it right look bad.
Hope we hear from you often.
I really hope that there are not that many directors and consultants using TOP to dump their product on after they "buy" their prizes but the point that there are ANY doing it is really, really sad in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteI know I have seen product that is way past its shelf life on TOP - I have seen discontinued product that has an expiration date that hadn't been manufactured in years so it would have to have been expired. I would not want anyone getting product that was crap and then judging MK (all of us) and the quality of our products based on that product. (It could happen) - as I said one of my clients ended up with sunless tanning that had expired in 1996 - 1996 not 2006, ugggg...
I don't feel as angry about exconsultants just going out of business liquidating what they have left but those still consultants/directors that are buying rings, cars, units, etc... and then dumping it at such a loss are going to be the ones that are complaining that they are now $25,000 in debt and having to claim bankruptcy. I actually feel sorry for someone that needs to go to that lengths for validation, recognition, or whatever and personally I think they have much bigger issues than MK.
I also want to apologize to any consultant that their director intentionally mislead them on their first order or sabotage them when they wanted to get out. But there are honest and dishonest people every where and we just must always be cautious.
Hello MK4ME.
ReplyDeletebeen awhile, hope you're well.
To answer your question on lawsuits.
Both sides have to approve the jurors through the jury selection process. They don't necessarily "pick" them. They can however, reject potential jurors. The judge can over-rule the jury's decision if he/she feels the verdict was not in accordance with the law or is inconsistent with the evidence presented in the case.
Go Red Sox.
Hi back to you Red sox Fan! thank you for the info - thought it was something like that, so the point is the lawyer for TOP if he thought a juror was biased toward MK, did have the opportunity to reject that juror, correct?? So perhaps the jury is an unbiased jury trying to decide the case based on what is presented to them and both side do present.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if the next complaint will be inadequate counsil. Perhaps unbiased people feel they made a fair and unbiased decision?
also a Red Sox Fan! :)
Court is kind of like theater. It may not be "supposed to be" like that but it is. I testified against a jack@$$ who curb stomped one of my girlfriends last year. I was the first person to physically see her after the assault and I took her to the hospital so I saw her unclothed body with all the wounds...hence I was an important witness. The photos taken by the cops on the scene were crappy.
ReplyDeleteThe lawyers worked hard to play on the jury's emotions. And, you know what? So did I. I told 100% the truth, have no doubt. But I know what to do with my face and my voice and my body language when I answer a lawyer's questions. Which side had the more skilled lawyer in the TOP trial? It matters. It matters a lot. People are emotional creatures.