More news from the Amway/Quixtar Team front. I have believed from the beginning - even before I received my informal legal education - that the Amway/Quixtar non-compete and non-solicitation clauses secretly slipped into the distributor contracts were unconscionable. It seems that every judge who hears both sides of the argument agrees with the distributors and not with Amway/Quixtar. With the latest ruling from Honorable Judge Don Bush in Texas - it is five judges in four separate states who have ruled on different portions of the Amway/Quixtar contract being unconscionable, invalid, or illusory. How much longer does Amway/Quixtar plan on fighting this Quixotic adventure against the basic principles of contract law? This should have been settled before the first lawsuit and only required a little statesmanship from the Amway/Quixtar managers.
Let me supply an analogy to explain what an illusory contract is that I believe is very similar to what Amway/Quixtar has attempted with their contract. If you bought a car from a dealership and don't pay cash you will have to sign a contract with terms to buy the car over so many years. You buy a car and sign a contract and begin faithfully paying the monthly bill. After the contract terms are up, you decide you will buy a new car from a new dealership. No big deal since you have followed the terms of your contract and have followed it in full. To your surprise, you get a threatening letter from the first dealership stating that you are not allowed to buy or even look at any other dealership. You tell them that was not in your contract and you have paid the contract in full and are going to buy a car from another maker and dealership. The first dealership then sends you a copy of your contract with the first provision that states the dealership reserves the right to change the contract at will and will inform you when they do. The dealership tells you they changed the contract and you now have a non-purchase and non-shopping clause in your contract. You insist that you never agreed or signed a contract with that garbage wording. They tell you that you must follow your contract and they have plenty of lawyers to force you to. You are horrified that you are bound to clauses that you never agreed to and the only argument the dealership retorts with is that you signed it and should have had a lawyer present. The dealership states that by publishing the new terms of the contract in the Dealership News (that you have never read!) - that this is sufficient for them to change the contract at will. This would be a prototypical example of an illusory contract!
In order to be a valid contract - both parties must sign a agree to follow the provisions. By placing a provision in the contract that allows Amway/Quixtar to change the contract at will - it makes the whole contract illusory. What is the use of signing anything since it can be changed at anytime? It binds the distributor but does not bind Amway/Quixtar. The Amway/Quixtar lawyers are not ignorant of Contract Law 101, so my assumption is they placed this clause in the contract to change it as they see fit to control the distributors. I am a business man and do not do business this way. When I sign a contract I expect it to bind both sides and never would sign nor teach others to sign a contract with this invalid and illusory provision. This was the moral dillemma the IBOAI Board faced and 40% of the Board did something about it. When the Devos & Van Andel families changed the contract from Quixtar to Amway and said they would force all Quixtar IBO's to join Amway - I realized that Amway/Quixtar fully intended to enforce the added illusory contract provisions that were stacked in Amway's favor. This is against standard contract law and why it has been rejected by 5 judges in 4 states. Something had to be done in my opinion - I refused to represent values and behaviors that ran against the core principles that I teach and desire to model in my life.
This has been the bone of contention since the dispute began. I do not feel it is moral for a company to force people to get into Amway against their will. We never agreed to non-competes and signed a Quixtar contract with no non-competes. How can you force all the these people to have non-competes and get on the Amway train without a choice? We live in
I humbly but firmly request that the leader of the Devos and Van Andel families step up to the plate and do the right thing. Admit that the contract is illusory and leave the former IBO's alone. They do not want to be in business with you and you should not and cannot force them to be against their wills. I am surprised that Dexter Yager, Bill Britt, Jim Dornan, Joe Markiewicz, John Crowe, Dave Dussault and the IBOAI are not insisting that the illusory contract provisions be changed.
Doug and Steve, this is not a publicity stunt. I am sincerely asking you to stop your lawsuit crazy lawyers and read the contract yourself. I don't believe you would recommend your own families to sign a contract with illusory provisions so why are you suing me because my conscience will not allow me to recommend potential distributors sign illusory contracts? I tried to reason with your management team of Jim Payne and Mike Mohr, but was terminated for not backing down on the moral issue of the unconscionable and illusory provisions.
We are firm in our belief that 'right makes might' and we will not back down on the sacred issue of our God given American rights. Doug Devos tear up this illusory contract and compete in free enterprise like your dad - Rich Devos - taught in Selling America! God Bless, Orrin Woodward
