« Believe The Movie | Main | I've Been Amwayed »
September 8, 2006
Quixtar Rule Change: Vendor Arbitration
By David Robison in Arbitration
UPDATE - The following entry appeared briefly at Quixtar Blog shortly after 6:00 PM CDT, but due to an editing change, it was accidently deleted. The entry needed editing, but in the interest of the integrity of Quixtar Blog, the entry appears unedited as originally posted.
My apologies to the readers.
- Dave
There was a recent announcement that Quixtar and a Quixtar IBO leader were going back to court to settle a dispute that arose out of the sale of motivational materials. The original case was first heard during a legal arbitration. This arbitration was held on the belief that Quixtar could bind the IBO leader to arbitration based on the BSMAA (Business Support Materials Arbitration Agreement).
The IBO leader was also the owner of a company producing the business support materials. During the case, his BSM company was found to be separate from his Quixtar Independent Business and not subject to the arbitration.
I hate to say it, but once again Alticor is playing "catch up." Or as my Momma used to say, "Closing the gate, after the cows done got out."
It would seem that Alticor and Quixtar expected this case to move forward and have revised the Quixtar Rules of Conduct. Quixtar made the Rules Change announcement on August 29, 2006.
"At its June 2006 meeting, the Independent Business Owners Association International Board recommended the adoption of Rule 7.3 and the Vender Arbitration Agreement (VAA), and a clarification to Rule 4.14.1 of the Rules of Conduct.
Rule 7.3, the VAA, and the clarification of Rule 4.14.1 were adopted by the Corporation and will take effect immediately."
The addition of the new Rule and Rule clarification will also be included in the next revision of the Business Reference Guide." (A PDF version of the guide can be read at this link.)
7.3.5- Every BSM Company must agree in writing to submit to confidential binding arbitration any dispute arising from or relating to the Quixtar business or to BSM:
between the BSM Company and any IBO;
between the BSM Company and any other BSM Company or any of its predecessors, successors, affiliates, parents, officers, directors or employees; or
between the BSM Company and Quixtar Inc. or any of its predecessors, successors, affiliates, parents, officers, directors or employees.
BSM Companies will comply with this requirement by either (a) executing the Vendor Arbitration Agreement ("VAA") or (b) by executing an agreement of substantially similar scope.
Language in the Vendor Arbitration Agreement begins with a legal recital:
Quixtar provides a multilevel business opportunity to independent business owners ("IBOs') throughout North America.
BSM Company is not an IBO. BSM Company produces for and/or sells to certain IBOs and their affiliated organizations ("LOAs") motivational and training materials such as tapes, books, audio-visual materials and meeting and seminar programs(hereinafter"BSMs") that are designed to aid and support the LOAs and individual IBOs in the development of their Quixtar-related businesses; BSM Company and Quixtar desire to minimize the time and expense that might be involved in resolving any disputes between BSM Company and Quixtar, or disputes between BSM Company and any Quixtar IBO, or disputes between BSM Company and any other company involved in the publication, production, distribution or sale of BSMs intended for use by IBOs, which may arise out of or relate in any way to BSM Company’s sales of BSMs to the LOAs and individual IBOs that purchase same.
The current legal case will move forward, I'm sure; but this new rule seems to be an additional hoop for the current IBO leaders to jump through in the new "campaign" to reign in the "motivational organizations."
Whether it is too little, too late, remains to be seen.
Comments
insider, are you totally insane? I have followed your posts and gone into your website and I don't see one thing you are saying that would persuade me in any way to join ANY MLM including Q* . CULT CULT CULT
Yes, gae, I'm actually typing this from a well known mental institution using a computer that follows my eyes to type, since my hands are wrapped in a straight jacket. :-P
It's ok GAE, i dont want you to join my, or any other mlm. Feel better now?
But Brad! We must save gae from the evil boss and job! Gae, we have the one true way to wealth and happiness ... please, save yourself, come to our meeting on Tuesday and see the light!!
You know that you have gone wrong when a Quixtar IBO won't sponsor you in his business.
; )
I see someone was present and accounted for in Posture 101.
I don't quite understand all of the negative in regards to Quixtar. It, and BWW are in business to yes, make money for themselves but also help others to do the same. Why don't people jump all over Avons back on how they do business. Do you honestly think that companies like RBC, Disney, Esso, Barnes and Noble, Tommy Hilfiger, Columbia, and so on would do business in an illegal mannor such as an illegal MLM business. Give your heads a shake! It is not MLM it is direct marketing and has made hard working people a lot of money and it is only growing. I can't understand how Accountants, Lawyers, Doctors, could have blinders pulled over their eyes. People this is a great business to be a part of and pays people for their efforts. Why don't you talk about some of the great things the company stands for and reads what CEO's of huge companies are saying.
Lovesquixtar,
Did you know that quixtar also had partnerships with Enron and MCI Worldcom?
IMO, a nice try but completely ridiculous and unenforceable. BSM companies are independent corporations and not IBOs. Quixtar cannot force them to do anything. They cannot terminate the BSM companies IBOship - it has none. They cannot force an IBO not to buy stuff from a BSM company any more than they can force them from buying stuff from Zig Ziglar.
So, all you'll get is BSM companies that already are wanting to play nice signing it, and no way of making others sign it. Well - except perhaps having it as a requirement for accreditation, in which case I think Ty's antitrust issue may arise.
Personally I think it's a nice bit of legalise designed to try and keep things out of the courts, but in reality does little more than line a few lawyers pockets if/when they ever try (and fail) to enforce it.
My 2cents on it anyway.
ps. I think it's entirely appropriate to edit posts if necessary, just make a note of the fact an edit has occurred.
Posted by: insider | September 8, 2006 3:13 AM