No, it was a case where they lied. They stated plainly that they had analyzed the instruments and found them to be unworthy, when in fact that had not done so. According to the article, the employees at BM had not even seen the instruments, let alone analyzed them.Chuck(G) wrote:So the basis of the lawsuit was that BM failed to perform due dilligence before they wrote their letter.
Whatever junk the FA instruments are, it's still actionable to lie about people in public such that they are harmed.
It would have been easy for BM to make their point by doing as I suggest and advising parents to inquire at local shops as to whether the FA instruments could be serviced or parts obtained. If the FA instruments are as you say, those parents would learn what they needed to know. And BM would have been giving good advice instead of fibbing.
I'm less concerned about buyers than you are. People learn when they buy without doing any research. At least these lessons are relatively cheap. If the instruments are unusable, then they are not merchantable and pretty soon the returns will force them to either improve or pull their products (or get rejected by retailers), and if they're bad enough they'll get busted by some ambitious attorney general. It will fix itself without Brook Mays's fibbage. The penalty is probably silly but the guilt is there.
Rick "wondering why BM didn't or couldn't line up dozens of repair techs to report on their substandard construction" Denney