I would not worry too much about the good guys at B-M. Good repair people are a scarce commodity, and if there is demand, they will find work. They might also find an opportunity to flourish in a company unencumbered by those legal and financial troubles.BAT boy wrote:I spose Ive ranted enough,but I dont care much for the legal BS. I see this as a bit more tragic.
No, they said "After careful examination of these instruments, we have determined that they will not play for the long term (if even the short term)! They break and parts are NOT available. The unfortunate fact is that the students that will be playing these instruments will likely not survive the first few months of band because of the design and quality … "It goes beyond that. They said that they had evaluated them and found them to be unworthy. When pressed during the litigation, they could not produce evidence of ever having had one in their shop, let alone evaluating it against any acceptable standard.
Any jury will think you are splitting hairs. If the corporation expresses an opinion, it doesn't matter who does the analysis or where as long as someone did it who was qualified to do it. If the corporation claims something to be true, they had better be able to show how they know it to be true. They made authoritative-sounding statements above without direct and supportable knowledge of the truth of those statements, and they were held to account. If their documentation had been shown to be in order during discovery, I suspect things would have turned out differently.patentnonsense wrote:No, they said "After careful examination of these instruments, we have determined that they will not play for the long term (if even the short term)! They break and parts are NOT available. The unfortunate fact is that the students that will be playing these instruments will likely not survive the first few months of band because of the design and quality … "
They didn't say that they had examined them in their shop.
Hey. I don't agree with it either, but when you have the opportunity to put one of your competitors out of business completely, I guess that's just to tempting to let go by.ThomasDodd wrote:Gotta love how telling the truth isn't enough, especially in the modern court room.
Can you purchase parts to repair them? No. B-M should be able to state that without needing reams of documentation to support that claim. The word of repairmen that have worked on them should be plenty to support their claims, again with no need for copious documentation. B-M techs didn't have to work on them, any more than I need to work on a 2006 model car to know that parts are expensive, have limited availability, and the cars are difficult to repair.
Instead of FA refuting the claims, in their sales material, with advertising, an maybe some endorsements, they sue.
Seams to be the American way today. The American dream has become "win a windfall settlement in a court case.'
Yes, the F. Schmidts are good. Of course, they are rebadged VMI's, so they should be good. I helped someone buy an F. Schmidt 3301, and it's every bit as good as the B&S PT-2P sibling that I tried around the same time.tubabernie wrote:As for the F.Schmidt BBb tubas: I bought one from brook Mays 4 years ago when they were kind of new to the market, and I must say, and a lot of people I have played with, you would never know that it was a BBb tuba.
Yes, that's a good analogy. Just because First Act had Wal-Mart behind them doesn't mean they shouldn't enjoy the same protections against libel as a small shop. If Wal-Mart and First Act published advertising that said that their research showed that Brook Mays instruments were factory seconds that were sold by unqualified salespeople, there might be those who would agree with that statement on the face of it. But I suspect the sympathies would be with the little guy no matter what. That is not, of course, how the law should work.Brian Guppy wrote:This scenario is not even remotely close to what happened with B-M. What B-M did would be akin to you saying "After careful examination I have determined that the crankshaft bearings on model X are prone to early failure" without being able to show that you had even looked at a model X.ThomasDodd wrote:I could open a car lot selling older (20+ years) cars and make the claim that new vehichles are more expensive and difficult to repair. Should I have to document the cost of 1000s of parts on tens of make/model/year vehichles first? My research show the statements to be try, be it random repairs done and parts purchased or stories from friends and family.
I'm still mulling that over. Since tort has been so screwy in recent decades, few will actually comment on a competing product. Modern ads are all about "this is the greatest" and "new and improved" even "Joe Blow uses this so you should too." It's hard to even find fair unbiased comparisons by 3rd parties.Rick Denney wrote:Yes, that's a good analogy.
That may be the crux of the matter. What is/was libel really about? Has the meaning changed? The juries and courts just looser about assigning fault? Slander is anotyher charge that is similar, yet not as commonly charged (sucessfully?).enjoy the same protections against libel
Sympathies tend to fall to the "small guy" in civil cases no matter the complaint. People like the David-v-Goliath approach and/or rooting for the underdog. The merits of a case are secondary for many. Just the fact the David is involved help him and increases the burden on Goliath.But I suspect the sympathies would be with the little guy no matter what. That is not, of course, how the law should work.
Sad, but true. The question is, who is correct; the uninvolved observer or passionate particapant?thinking most people complain about lawyers until they are the victim