Comments about ‘Former Miss Utah takes case against Nu Skin to federal court’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, Feb. 11 2014 2:10 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
The Rock
Federal Way, WA

It sounds like the beauty queen has a case.
The seized her property and did not return it.
They damaged her reputation as well. Very difficult to recover from.

If Nu Skin had required that the donated product be donated to the poor and forbade the resale of the same, it would be different. Apparently they did not place that restriction on the recipient of the products.

While it was not illegal to resale the merchandise, I think it was foul. First you take the donation, then you fail to use it as intended (donate it to the poor) and then you deprive your benefactor of future sales by competing with them. Bad form.

Should have entered into a written agreement up front.

From Ted's Head
Orem, UT

I can't imagine that Nu Skin would have ever allowed their products to be sold online. I can see them agreeing to donate them and get whatever tax benefit might come from doing so. I have to think that there was a provision against the resale of these products. Were they stolen, as was first alleged and reported? Apparently not. Should the donated products be returned to Craig et al for unauthorized resale online? I would think not.

casual observer
Salt Lake City, UT

The best defense is a good offense.

FREDISDEAD
Layton, UT

Hope she wins!

sg
newhall, CA

Sounds like she has a case and I hope Nu Skin is found culpable and guilty or character assassination. Once it was proven that she didn't steal anything from Nu Skin, Nu Skin should have released a one-page ad clearing her of all charges and return all the product. It is Nu Skin whose reputation should be tarnished. Sometimes being Golliath shouldn't pay.

la113
provo, UT

Gotta agree with The Rock, FREDISDEAD, and sg, it looks like she has a really good case. Nu Skin was in the wrong. And to ruin someone's life because they don't have provisions set in their employee store is wrong. I hope they pay. Saying these people stole when it was given to them, that is horrible! Good for you beauty queen! Hope you win!

jpc53
Cottonwood Heights, UT

You can get in trouble if you try and sell expired, returned or mislabeled consumables. Hopefully that kind of product sold was only the facial products.

Midwest Mom
Soldiers Grove, WI

The important message that everyone seems to overlook is that if you're big enough, and rich enough, you can get the police to be your attack dogs and they will arrest and charge you without even doing an investigation.

So much for American exceptionalism.

Go Big Blue!!!
Bountiful, UT

We clearly do not have all of the facts here to determine who is at fault. The comments in the article site the law suit. We do not know the details surrounding the charges and subsequent dismissal of charges. Let's wait and see what the court says before we try the case on a public forum.

NedGrimley
Brigham City, UT

Wow. No need to have a trial. We've already got this settled in the comments section of the DNews. Yay!

Eliot
Genola, UT

"Sometimes being Golliath shouldn't pay"

As I recall, it didn't end too well for the giant in the original story.

Old Jake
San Antonia, TX

If the products were given for the intent of donations then that is what should have been done.

If Miss Utah didn't know about that she isn't at fault and the case was clearly dropped.

But to sue to get product back that was never meant for online sales seems silly.

Move on instead of dragging yourself back into the mud.

Tators
Hyrum, UT

No company ever gives away their products for someone else to sell online without any compensation. No one is even contending that Nu-Skin ever agreed to such an arrangement.

Common sense should've warned this lady that something wasn't right and she should've obtained more detail of the arrangement between her supplier and Nu-Skin, in order to keep from being implicated with fraud and/or other illegal activity.

From the limited information given in the article, it appears no one had the legal authorization to resale any of those expired Nu-Skin products. The whole intent from Nu-Skin was to have their expired products donated to poor people in an act of charitable giving and nothing more.
Anything beyond that for personal gain would be considered deceptive theft, since those sales would cut into Nu-Skin's online sales and profits.

I think Nu-Skin will prevail in this case.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments