Quixtar – Amway Non-Compete News | MLM Blog

Quixtar – Amway Non-Compete News

Posted on 27. May, 2008 by Ty Tribble in Amway, Quixtar

I just unleashed 7 of my most closely guarded Internet Marketing files for the first time. Download Ty Tribble's MLM Web Secrets. It's my free gift to you for visiting.

Here is a taste of what is being said around the net about a recent ruling...

On Friday, May 23, 2008, the Federal Court for the Eastern District of Texas ruled that the Quixtar Rules of Conduct are unenforceable because they are on their face illusory. Simmons et. al. v. Quixtar. Citing the fact that Rule 1 of the Rules of Conduct reserve in the Corporation the right to change or amend the rules at any time, the court held that on their face the Rules are but an illusion that cannot be enforced.

- Orrin Woodward's Blog quoting Attorney, Mike McCormick

Quixtar has suffered a legal setback in their dispute with TEAM. A Texas district court judge has declared that earlier Fifth Circuit reasoning in Morrison et al vs Amway et al that Amway's contract was "illusory and unenforceable" also applies to current Quixtar contracts.
- "A Win For Team" by IBOFightback at The Truth About Amway
This ruling, and a couple of other recent ones, will likely have an impact (how significant remains to be seen) on several recent TEAM cases and Quixtar’s arbitration agreement. On February 8, 2008, on the Alticor Media Blog, the blog’s moderator, in speaking to the dismissal of the Nitro case stated:

“And another important point: Contrary to some of the spinners out there, the ruling hinges on the fact that the dispute is so very old—beginning before 1998, before we even had an arbitration program. Therefore, the effect of this ruling on our current arbitration program and current cases (a shrinking list, given the Nitro dismissal) is virtually zero. If someone’s telling you otherwise, don’t buy the hype.”

Well, it’s obvious the judge in this case clearly disagrees with the blog moderator’s assessment of the matter. Apparently “virtually zero” isn’t “absolute zero.” However, this is not a final ruling on the merits of the case itself, so we will have to wait to hear how the specific case itself plays out.
- Chuck Lia, Speaking of Amway

Chuck's site also includes the entire ruling for your viewing pleasure.

In my search for information about the case, I also found a new site called Amway Watch that you might want to have a look at. I suspect that the site is run by IBOFightback, but in my quick look, I did not see any authorship.

Share: