IBOFB thinks whatever is said against Amway is bizarre. He does not think it bizarre if a company asks the customer to become a member by paying hefty fee which helps the company to line its pocket which is in turn unjust enrichment. The judgement clearly stated in the Para 33, "As pleaded by the petitioners themselves, out of Rs. 4,400 a substantial part namely Rs. 1,800 is collected as subscription fee, license fee, business kit etc. To qualify for earning commission a member has to earn the minimum monthly PV of 50 which he will get by selling products worth Rs. 2,000 Respondent No 6 in para-11(c) of his counter affidavit specifically pleaded that Amway (first petitioner) would automatically get a business of the quantum of Rs. 1,080 crore (4,50,000x2000x12(months) per annum which would yield an astronomical profit and it cannot but be stated as easy/quick money without any service to the distributors/members irrespective of whether they sell the products or not, though the company may conveniently refer it as 'turnover by sale of products'. Significantly, this assertion made in the counter affidavit is not denied in the rejoinder of the petitioners (i.e. Amway India). They have merely tried to explain the said allegation y offering certain justifications. The petitioners have not specifically denied that the the first petitioner would get a sum of Rs. 1,080 crore by ensuring that each distributor maintains the minimum sales level. Even though the scheme per se does not stipulate that each distributor has to maintain the minimum required business level, prescription of minimum level of 50 PV to qualify for getting commission is sufficient inducement for the members to relentlessly strive for maintaining the PV level at or above the said minimum levels."
When it is crystal clear for any sane person, for IBOFB it is bizarre thinking.
In para 34, the judgement said, "It is thus evident that the whole scheme is so ingeniously conceived that the inducement for aggressive enrollment of new members to earn more and more commission is inherent in the scheme. By holding out attractive commission on the business turned out by the downline members, the scheme provides for sufficient inducements for its members to chase for the new members in their hot pursuit to make quick/easy money. On the part of the promoter ;by pushing each member to achieve the minimum sales worth Rs. 2,000 per month, (this sales includes enrollment of new members) he is assured of about Rs. 1000 crore per annum. All this squarely satisfy the description of quick/easy money. In addition to this, it is an admitted fact that each person in order to continue to be the distributor, shall pay renewal subscription fee of Rs. 995 per annum. In para-11 (b) of the counter affidavit on the admitted number of distributors of 4,50,000 this amount is calculated at about Rs. 45 crore per annum. These figures are not denied by the first petitioner (Amway India) in its rejoinder. The plea of the first petitioner that there is no compulsion that a member shall renew his distributorship looks to us to be specious. Once a person becomes a distributor in a scheme of this nature where the sops in the shape of commission are so luring, it would be very difficult for a member to withdraw from their membership to avoid payment of the annual renewal subscription fee."
It is amply clear that the Andhra Pradesh High Court had rightly dissected the scheme of Amway India and came to the above conclusion. For IBOFBs and their ilk, it is bizarre thinking.
Instead he tries time and gain to divert the attention by asking irrelevant questions. He conveniently skips the issue of fine imposed on Amway India by the Consumer Forum at Vijayawada for selling adulterated products.
My point is to take the issue to the notice of people of India and the rest of the world and caution them about the traps laid by fraudsters like Amway, Herbalife, Forever Living Products, Hindustan Unilevel Network and others.
1 comment:
I outlined what I thought was "bizarre", including addressing some of the sections you quote.
You have failed completely to address the issues I raised.
For just one example, I again point out the section you quoted, where the judge claims "it would be very difficult for a member to withdraw from their membership to avoid payment of the annual renewal subscription fee." ... when a simple look at renewal statistics, ie FACTS, shows he is completely wrong on this assertion.
You also claim, falsely, that I've failed to address the "Consumer Forum at Vijayawada". It amazes me that you state such blatent falsehoods when it takes but a moment for anyone to check you are not telling the truth
As I asked on the last post, what posesses so many Amway critics to so often be dishonest? On this site alone in the last few days you've multiple times claimed I've said things different to what I've said. JoeCool has utterly lied about what I've achieved in the Amway business, and David Brear has been dishonest in reporting what was found by the BERR vs Amway UK court case.
How can people really expect to be taken seriously as "scambusters" when it's clear they themselves are dishonest?
Post a Comment