Missing Information and Its Affects on Ruling, Essay Example

Abstract

This paper explores one published article, which looks in-depth to the case Janet Isbell vs. Mary Kay Cosmetics. This assignment was given to better understand particular acts of the law and how they should be applied within the courtroom. As well as how trustworthy are the Judges reasoning’s within this case. Utilizing information from case 35-2 Mary Kay, Inc., A/K/A Mary Kay Cosmetics, INC. v. Janet Isbell, Supreme Court of Arkansas.

Keywords: Arkansas Franchise Act, Mary Kay Cosmetics, 1994

Missing Information and its Affects on Ruling

In your lifetime there will be many disputes that you will encounter. Most disputes can be handle with ease. Those who cannot find a solution usually find themselves in court, placing the verdict hands of a Judge, hoping it will work in out their favor. The issue that lies within this option is that not presenting your case eloquently can lead you to an undeserved verdict. The question at hand, is a verdict based upon how you presented your case?  Or should they be based on the jurisdictions laws that every judge should have knowledge of? Lets first examine how missing information could prevent you from being confident in the Judges verdict.

Missing Information

All information that can be used to help your case is essential. One piece of information could make a difference between losing and winning a case. The issue begins with Mary Kay and their vague Rules and Regulations provided for their sales associates. They made it clear that they did not want their sales associates to sell their items from an establishment that gave the impression, that it was a salon or Mary Kay store. They also claimed that Mary Kay sales associates could not sell products out of their office, which may or may not be their home. Yet most of the sales are done when giving private showings at clients homes or their own. Their Rules and Regulations or so confusing and have many loopholes that they had no reason to terminate their agreement with Janet Isbell from the beginning.

Under § 4-72-202 (1) (A) of the act, franchise means, “A written or oral agreement for a definite or indefinite period in which a person grants to another person a license to use a trade name, trademark, service mark, or related characteristic within an exclusive or nonexclusive territory or to sell or distribute goods or services within an exclusive or nonexclusive territory at wholesale or retail, by lease agreement, or otherwise.” Janet Isbell is well within her rights to sue Mary Kay Cosmetics. Though under § 4-72-202 (1) (B) the act states, “However, a franchise is not created by a lease, license, or concession granted by a retailer to sell goods or furnish services on or from premises which are occupied by the retailer-grantor primarily for its own merchandising activities and a franchise is not created by door-to-door sales complying with § 4-89-101 et seq.” This minute detail shows that the only thing Mary Kay was guilty of is not being clearer in their company client agreement.

Arkansas Franchise Act

Under law by the Arkansas Franchise Act, Janet Isbell was not considered a franchiser. Thus making her case invalid and technically by the law Mary Kay should have not been penalized. Though through Mary Kay’s Agreement her rights were violated and should have been compensated. This case was not tried under the proper law and Janet Isbell should not have filed under the Arkansas Franchise Act. I would not apply this law to this case and I believe that tried under a proper law that she should still receive compensation in some form.

In conclusion, when presenting a case all parties should do their best to research and acquire all knowledge that may help their case. I feel as though the defense failed to execute their case. I also feel that the Judge failed to have more knowledge on an act within his Jurisdiction. Janet Isbell did her researched, utilized loopholes, and won her case rightfully so.