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.
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.
The best defense is a good offense.
Hope she wins!
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
Wow. No need to have a trial. We've already got this settled in the
comments section of the DNews. Yay!
"Sometimes being Golliath shouldn't pay"As I recall, it
didn't end too well for the giant in the original story.
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.
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.