Bama's Best Party Sales v. Tupperware
©www.mlmlegal.com
Welcome to the MLMLegal.com Legal Cases Project. Here you will find hundreds of legal cases
in the fields of MLM, Direct Selling, Network Marketing, Multilevel Marketing and Party Plan.
The cases span federal and state courts as well as administrative cases from the FTC, FDA, IRS,
SEC, worker’s compensation, unemployment compensation, etc.
The intent of the MLMLegal.com Cases Project is strictly educational, and, to provide insight
into the legal issues and cases for an industry that spans the globe in upwards of 150 countries
with sales volume exceeding $100 billion and distributor involvement in the tens of millions.
MLMLegal.Com does not promote or endorse any company. MLMLegal.Com offers no value
judgments, either pro or con, regarding the companies profiled in legal cases.
Jeffrey A. Babener, principal attorney in the Portland, Oregon, law firm Babener & Associates,
and editor of www.mlmlegal.com, represents many of the leading direct selling companies in the
United States and abroad.
Bama's Best Party Sales v. Tupperware
Case: Bama's Best Party Sales v. Tupperware (1998)
Subject Category: Distributor Agreement
Agency Involved: Private Civil Suit
Court: Alabama Supreme Court
Alabama
Case Synopsis: Bama's Best sued Tupperware, alleging fraudulent conduct by Tupperware in inducing
the owners to purchases a distributorship that was less profitable than Tupperware represented.
Legal Issue: Did Tupperware commit fraud when inducing the plaintiffs to purchase a Tupperware
distributorship?
Court Ruling: The Court ruled that the jury properly found Tupperware not liable for fraud. The Blessings
bought a Tupperware distributorship in Alabama based on the representations of Tupperware that the
territory had not been effectively marketed to in the past, and that with effective marketing, the
distributorship would be profitable. After operating the distributorship for a number of years, the
Blessings realized that the distributorship had been effectively marketed to in the past and was not
profitable, and sued Tupperware for fraud. On Appeal, the Blessings argued that evidence was
improperly disallowed that would tend to show other fraudulent conduct by Tupperware. The Supreme
Court found that the evidence was properly excluded, but that the court improperly dismissed a
collateral claim against the previous owners of the distributorship.
