{"id":123949,"date":"2018-02-20T23:50:30","date_gmt":"2018-02-20T23:50:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/writemyessayfree.com\/mary-kay-inc-aka-mary-kay-cosmetics-inc-v-janet-isbell"},"modified":"2017-08-12T07:49:24","modified_gmt":"2017-08-12T07:49:24","slug":"mary-kay-inc-aka-mary-kay-cosmetics-inc-v-janet-isbell","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/mary-kay-inc-aka-mary-kay-cosmetics-inc-v-janet-isbell\/","title":{"rendered":"MARY KAY, INC., A\/K\/A MARY KAY COSMETICS, INC. V. JANET ISBELL"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n ‘
\n ‘
\n March 21, 2017<\/time>\n <\/div>\n

<'\">
\n <\/i>0<\/span><\/a>\n <\/div>\n

\n <\/span> <\/span> 0<\/span> <\/a>\n <\/div>\n
\n <\/span>
\n Services<\/a>\n <\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n

MARY KAY, INC., A\/K\/A MARY KAY COSMETICS, INC. V. JANET ISBELL<\/h2>\n

MARY KAY, INC., A\/K\/A MARY KAY COSMETICS, INC. V. JANET ISBELLCASE 20-2 SUPREME COURT or ARKANSAS
338 Ark. 556; 999 S.W.2d 669; 1999 Ark. LEXIS 443<\/p>\n

FACTS: In 1980. Janet Isbell signed an agreement to REASONING: Sections 4-72-203 and 4-72-202 (6)
become a beauty consultant for Mary Kay. This agree- of the Arkansas Franchise Practices Act establish that
merit established that she would sell products to cus- the act applies only to a franchise that contemplates or
tomers at home demonstration parties, but she was requires the franchise to establish or maintain a place of
prohibited from selling the products in retail establi\u2019sh- business in the state. A place of business is defined as
merits. In I 981 and I991, Isbell signed agreements to \u00eca fixed geographical location at which the franchisee
become a unit sales director In addition to serving as [1] displays for sale and sells the franchisor\u00ebs goods or
a beauty consultant, Isbell recruited beauty consul- [2] offers for sale and sells the franchisor\u00ebs services.\u201d In
tants. In 1994, she rented a space in a shopping mall this case, there was no evidence that Isbell sold Mary
to serve as a training center. In April 1994, Mary Kay \u00eds Kay products from a fixed geographic location. Isbell
legal coordinator contacted Isbell, stating that the store was, in fact, prohibited from selling products from her
space was not to be used to sell Mary Kay products. offce or center. Isbell was to sell products in custom-
According to the agreement, Isbell\u00eds office could not ers\u00eb homes. Additionally, the agreements signed by
look like a Mary Kay store. In September 1995, the vice Isbell make no mention of a fixed geographic location
president of sales development notified Isbell that Mary as a place of business. There was no evidence that Mary
Kay was terminating its agreements with Isbell. Isbell Kay contemplated that Isbell would maintain a place of a
filed suit against lllarjv Kay, claiming that she was a business inArl(ansas.
fianchise under the Arkansas Franchise Practices Act. DECISION AND RENIEDY The Arkansas Franchise
She argued that Mary Kay violated the Franchise Prac-
tices Act bv refusing to comply with the FPA provisions Prune\u00ec Act md not apply to Isbell because Isbell did not<\/p>\n

meet the definition of a franchise. The trial court\u2019s ruling
fiir termination of a franchise. The trial court granted<\/p>\n

was reversed, and the case was dismissed.
summary yudgment to Isbell, but it did not explain why
lsbell\u00eds relationship with Mary Kay could be consid- SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CASE: This case raises
ered afianchise. The trial court ruled as a matter of law questions about legal protections for people like Janet
that Mary Kay \u20185 termination of Isbell had violated the Isbell who sell products for companies that, like Mary Kay,
act, and a jury awarded Isbell $110,583.33. Mary Kay don\u00edt require the sellers to maintain a fixed place of busi-
appealed. ness. Ifthose sellers are not franchisees, what is their role?
I endemt contractors? ents? Em I ees? What le<\/p>\n

o serve as a training center: In April l994, Mary Kay \u00eds Kay products from a fixed geographic location. Isbell
legal coordinator contacted Isbell, stating that the store was, in fact, prohibited from selling products from her
space was not to be used to sell Mary Kay products. offne or center. Isbell was to sell products in custom-
According to the agreement. Isbell \u00eds ofiice could not ers\u00eb homes. Additionally, the agreements signed by
look like a Mary Kay store. In September 1995, the vice Isbell make no mention of a fixed geographic location
president of sales development notified Isbell that Mary as a place of business. There was no evidence that Mary
Kay was terminating its agreements with Isbell. Isbell Kay contemplated that Isbell would maintain a place of a
filed suit against Mary Kay, claiming that she was a business in Arkansas.
franchise under the Arlran.sas Franchise Practices Act. DEGSION AND REMEDY: The Arkansas Fmnchise
She argued that Mary Kay violated the Franchise Prac-
Practices Act did not apply to Isbell because Isbell did not
tices Act by refusing to comply with the FPA provisions
meet the definition of a franchise. The trial court s ruling
jbr termination of a franchise. The trial court granted
was reversed, and the case was dismissed.
summary judgment to Isbell, but it did not explain why
lsbell \u00eds relationship with Mary Kay could be consid- SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CASE: This case raises
ered a franchise. The trial court ruled as a matter oflaw questions about legal protections for people like Janet
that illarjy Kay \u20185 termination of lsbell had violated the Isbell who sell products for companies that, like Mary Kay,
act, and a jury awarded Isbell S I 10,583.33. Mary Kay don\u2019t require the sellers to maintain a fixed place of busi-
appealed. ness. If those sellers are not franchisees, what is their role?
Independent contractors\u00ed? Agents? Employees? What legal
ISSUE. Was Janet Isbell a franchisee of Mary Kay\u00ed? protections are offered no the sane\u00ec?
Glll\u2019lI.\u2019.\u00ebAI.\u2019I\u2019l\u2019IlIolfi
What missing information would you call for when considering the facts of this case?
Would you interpret the Arkansas Franchise Practices Act and how it applies to the facts of the case diffirently than the
judge did? Why or why not\u00eb?
Consider the WPH fiamework. What values was Isbell promoting? What values were in conflict? Was the court fair in
assessing her actions in light of these values?<\/p>\n

ISSUE: Was Janet Isbell a franchisee oflvlary Kay? pigzwm are offered to 3: mum? P \u201c3\u00ed 3\u00ec<\/p>\n

paper instructions:<\/p>\n

Each student is to brief three cases. The professor will select a practice brief for the student. The brief will be due June 24, 2014. The professor will choose one case from the text. The students are to brief the case and turn the case in on June 26, 2014. The student must be prepared to brief the case orally in class when called upon. Be advised that if the student is absent when called upon, the student will receive an \u00ecF\u00ee for participation. The final brief is to be chosen by the student from lexis nexis or some other computerized database. The final brief is due on July 3, 2014.
In each instance make sure to properly cite the cases. A proper citation should read \u00ecWindows, Inc. v. Jordan Panel Systems Corp. 177 F. 3d 114. Where the first name is the plaintiff and second name is the defendant. The first number is the volume in the California Reporter third series page 114. This citation follows suit at both the federal and state level.
To brief the cases properly, the student must use FILAC. Each assignment must be turned in on time.<\/p>\n

FILAC FACTS, ISSUE, LAW, ANALYSIS CONCLUSION<\/p>\n

FACTS:
The facts describe the events that led to the controversy in question. All that is required is a brief statement of the acts, physical events, and other matters that caused the parties to seek relief from the judicial systems. Should be no more that six sentences..<\/p>\n

ISSUE:
This issue is the reason why the parties are in court. It is a one sentence statement followed by a question mark. The issue is what the court must answer in granting or denying relief.<\/p>\n

LAW:
In reaching a decision, the court must apply the law. In each case, the student must find the applicable law. In a full text case, the law will be explicitly stated. However, in the text, these are partially briefed cases and sometimes the authors omit the law. In this instance, please refer to the preceding section to find the law. Remember, when reading a case there will be references to other cases, principles. However, the cases and other references in the case assist the court in applying the law. Remember, write the applicable law (code, constitutional provision, treaty etc).<\/p>\n

ANALYSIS:<\/p>\n

The analysis is the application of the facts to the law in deciding the case. The analysis will include the court\u00eds rationale in deciding the case. The analysis will include a review of cases, distinguishing past cases from the current case, acknowledgement that a certain case is applicable and is the governing principle in applying the law. Think of an analysis as where the court combines the facts to the law to reach a conclusion. This section should be no more than five or six sentences.<\/p>\n

CONCLUSION:<\/p>\n

The conclusion is only who won the case. In many instances the case has been appealed and the original plaintiff is now the defendant and the original defendant is the plaintiff. Remember, determine which court you are in (superior, appellate, supreme) and if it is the appellate court, determine who the original plaintiff was and whether the case has been appealed.
FACTS: Capital Currency Exchange (CCE) is a financial organization that engaged in retail currency exchange and transferring money between the United States and England. CCE and its affiliates maintained a banking relationship with Barclays UK. In 1992 Worldcash wanted to acquire a New York State money transmission license. A $500,000 needed to be posted for the New York State banking authorities. On behalf of Worldcash, CCE prepared a line of credit as security for the bond with Barclays UK in 1991. Barclays UK and CCE severed ties in May of 1995 after Barclays UK informed CCE it needed to use another banker for future business. The facts of the split are disputed by both parties. National Westminster Bank also denied services to CCE which led CCE to believe that Barclays UK was conspiring against them. CCE brought suit and claims the conspiracy violates antitrust laws under the Sherman Act.
Barclays UK and National Westminster argued that the case should be dismissed under the Forum Non Conveniens Doctrine.<\/p>\n

ISSUE: Is the another adequate forum to resolve the dispute under the Forum Non Conveniens Doctrine<\/p>\n

LAW: The Forum Non Conveniens Doctrine states that an alternative forum is adequate if: (1) the defendants are subject to the service of process there; and (2) the forum permits litigation of the subject matter of the dispute.<\/p>\n

ANALYSIS: The District Court found that the English courts are an adequate alternative forum to solve the dispute between all parties involved. The English courts have the power to award damages based on violations of antitrust law. The court made it clear that although treble damages are unavailable, it does not render a forum inadequate.<\/p>\n

CONCUSION: Affirmed in favor of Barclays UK and National Westminster Bank<\/p>\n

\n
\n

Share this:<\/h3>\n
\n