Trial Judge George D. Carey
As pointed out on this site, I am not the first to take on this giant. In Idaho, a former distributor named Bill Griffin was put through the same systematic fleecing that I and thousand of others have experienced. Griffin was sued by Mac for monies owed in relation to a failed distributorship, but filed a counterclaim alleging breach of contract, fraud, unjust enrichment, conversion, and violations of the Idaho consumer protection act. For countless families who have had the misfortune of becoming a Mac Distributor, Griffin's counterclaim sounds very familiar.
The case was tried in 1991 and was a total victory for Mr. Griffin. The Jury returned a verdict of $40,000 for compensatory damages and $500,000 for exemplary damages. After the trial, there were several post-trial motions by both sides. In July of 1992 the presiding Judge on the case, the Honourable George D. Carey, issued his "Memorandum Concerning Post-trial Motions And Supplemental Judgment". Essentially this is the judges post trial opinion of all that was put before him and his reply to several post-trial motions. The document is 32 pages and deals with all the motions and is also an often scathing indictment of Mac and their policies. Here is a collection of some of the most notable quotes:
"By way of background only, Griffin is one of a number of failed distributors throughout the United States who have brought actions against Mac on a variety of theories. While there is no evidence in the record of the actual number of pending lawsuits, there is evidence of the high rate of turnover of Mac Distributors. Counsel indicate that this is the first of the cases to have gone to trial."
Remember that this was in late 1991 that the trial took place and at that time there were lawsuits from all over the country awaiting the outcome of this trial. This decision was the inspiration for Mac changing the distributor contract to limit their exposure to future litigation.
"Griffin's breach of contract claims involved both breach of specific contractual promises and implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. There was evidence in the record from which the jury could have found that Mac breached its contract by failing to provide promised training and support prior to and during the term of Griffin's distributorship....."
These are the very same claims made by me in my original lawsuit against Stanley. These are also many of the accusations that I make resulting in my being sued for defamation.
"The damages claimed by Griffin in the counterclaim were the net profits the distributorship lost as a result of Mac's breach of the agreement and as a result of Mac's violation of the consumer protection act. Alternatively, Griffin claimed the difference between net profits that would have resulted if Mac's representations had been true and actual profits."
Mac's lawyers made several motions after the verdict, one of which was to have a new trial ordered based on the evidence. The judge denied this motion:
"Having sat through the trial, having listened to the witnesses, and having reviewed the evidence, I am satisfied that the jury reached the correct decision. I have considered the testimony of all the witnesses, and I believe Griffin proved with substantial evidence that Mac breached specific terms of it's agreement and breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.....I believe Griffin also proved that Mac violated the consumer protection act by representing to Griffin that its training, support, and collection services to distributors had uses and benefits which in fact did not exist, that Mac represented its training, support, and collection services to be a of a standard and quality which in fact did not exist, and that Mac advertised for sale to Griffin training, support, and collection services that it never intended to provide. Griffin proved that he lost at least $40,000 in net profits that he reasonably would have received if Mac had lived up to its agreement and its representations and conduct had not violated the consumer protection act. Griffin also proved that this was not an isolated incident; Mac repeatedly violated the consumer protection act in its dealings with all the distributors that testified for Griffin on this issue."
Naturally, Stanley's lawyers took exception to the exemplary award of $500,000, asserting it was too high.
"In my constitutional analysis, I already reviewed many of the appropriate criteria in judging the amount of the award. Factoring in my experience, it is clear that the exemplary damage award is large and bears a higher proportion to compensatory damages than is found in many cases. A very substantial award, however, is necessary to deter Mac from similar conduct in the future. In common with many trial judges, I am not a fan of inflated verdicts. Nevertheless, my conscience was shocked not by the jury verdict but by the indefensible tactics used by Mac against Griffin and other local distributors. It is difficult to fathom why a company that has a deserved reputation for manufacturing high-quality products would be willing to treat its primary customers -- the local distributors--so shabbily. The evidence shows that Mac enticed new and unsophisticated distributors into the business with misleading information and pie-in-the-sky projections. The evidence shows that Mac was determined to squeeze every penny it could out of its distributors, within or without the confines of the law. Mac is a multi-million dollar company with many distributors, and only a large award of exemplary damages will deter it from similar conduct in the future."
The judge also made note of the competency of the jury and their exemplary award:
"If this case had been tried to the court rather than to a jury, I would have entered an award of at least $500,000 in exemplary damages. Needless to say, it is my conviction that the jury verdict did not result from passion or prejudice against Mac but from a sober and rational assessment of the evidence. The jury did justice to these parties."
In summation, the judge said:
"I take no pleasure in making critical comments about Mac, and I would prefer not to make any comments at all. Mac makes excellent products, and no doubt some of its tactics have been the result of historical practices in the industry. My remarks are made only so that there is a proper record for appellate review."
The verdict was indeed appealed but was upheld in 1994 by the Idaho supreme court. This decision opened a flood of claims from distributors from all over the U.S. who were awaiting the outcome of this case.
What I find most interesting and personally vindicating is that Judge Carey's scathing quotes are findings of fact! These are not the accusations of a biased party like myself or the multitude of other dissatisfied people, but the findings of a jury and an experienced trial judge. These findings have been "the smoking gun" that has cost Stanley untold millions of dollars in settlements. By not settling my claim, and escalating the conflict to the point it is now, they have forced me to let the cat out of the bag.
Mac made great efforts to show that the $500,000 award was unreasonable. The justification the judge had for upholding the award was mainly so it would act as a deterrent for similar future conduct with distributors. Well, what of it?? Nothing happened. There were no changes.
Exemplary damages are to be penal. In this case it has become painfully obvious that the $500,000 award was not adequate. This award was ordered 8 years ago and upheld 6 years ago, yet here I am all these years later bringing to the public my case which is altogether too similar. What is shocking is that Mac continued their policies after Griffin and, instead of changing the system, simply changed the distributor contract so that future distributors could not use litigation to seek compensation. Since Griffin, Stanley has routinely settled thousands of cases through mediated settlements and confidentiality agreements. For years, it has been cheaper to pay the settlements than to change the system.
In the Griffin case, Mac's lawyers also took offence to the references to The Stanley Works and their wealth during opening and closing arguments. There was wisdom in trying to have Stanley distance itself from Mac and the negative publicity the case was attracting. In my case, Stanley cannot hide behind a subsidiary. It has been, and will be, their name that is front and centre.
I am being sued for $15 million for defamation, essentially being called a liar for speaking what has been proven to be the truth! The only judicial body to have opined a Mac distributor case has shown the court's contempt for this company and its actions by upholding a decision brought forth by a jury of Griffins peers. Judge Carey's opinions are further proof that my comments on the www.mactools.ab.ca site and most recently on the www.stanleysucks.com web sites are truthful. The mere existence of this web site and my protracted disputes is yet more proof that the Griffin award was inadequate.
In hindsight, the award did not "deter Mac and others from similar conduct in the future" as both the Judge and jury had hoped. Stanley, through Mac Tools, has continued to profit from these illegal activities without fear of any real retribution. Through Stanley's continued abuse of me and their abuse of others, that retribution is imminent.