Doesn't somebody have the cojones to sue the bottom out of their bottom line?
Ah, the ever worthy "Conehead" legal defense.
WE COME FROM FRANCE!
Guaranteed judgement relief!
Ok, I'm coming with a new business model - are you ready?!? I invoice myself for services you've given me for writing negative reviews of online businesses, but since you haven't written these negative reviews I credit note myself to get that money back, and then I threaten legal action if you don't pay me the credit note. I also sell my services to other companies to keep you from writing negative reviews about them, or I sell my services to other companies offering to get you to write negative reviews of their competitors after which I send an invoice to another company that has a similar name to the company I offered my services to and if they pay then I send a letter to the vice president of the company that I offered my services to filled with sexual innuendo about their parents and offer to keep that off of the website of the people who are the owners of the company that I am selling the service of not suing them. Basically I will be filthy rich, but unfortunately I won't know where any of my money is.
Every foreign corporation is required to have a resident agent, in every state I know. (Foreign in this context means out-of-state, not just French.) The resident agent's job - sometimes their only job - is to receive notice of legal action.
So "we weren't" noticed is never a valid defense for a corporation.
You are almost a mobster.
IANAL, but are you sure this is still the case? What with corporations being people'n'all?
Wow, even the guy they use for the logo looks like a douchebag shyster...
Yeaahhh, you can trust me...... yep...
Certainly some enterprising programmer has already created a browser add-on that places a stipulation into the user-agent metadata stating that the user will not be bound by any EULAs enacted by simply browsing said website. Or would that be bad in that it opens the door to allowing these bullshit-type EULAs to exist?
The simple solutions are to seize any assets controlled on American soil, send an order to the credit bureaus to remove all references in all files from Kleargear, then ban those credit agencies from accepting Kleargear references. Lastly, put Kleargear onto the banking ban list so no American money can find its way to the company.
Since Kleargear admits they have no interests in the U.S., they do not qualify for 1st Amendment protections, allowing those bans and orders to be put into effect.
All of this bypasses Kleargear completely, and should be easy enough to implement and enforce. Buh Bye, Kleargear.
Well, given that the legal definition of a person is, essentially, something that can sue or be sued...
Had the Palmers wrote on ripoffreport.com that they love the product that Kleargear had not sent them and looking forward to its arrival, would that have passed the (dijon) mustard?
I think you mean every foreign corporation doing business in a state. Certainly "every foreign corporation" in existence is not required to have an agent in each of the 50 states -- or in any state at all. I've dealt with a number of instances where out-of-state corporations did not have agents in my state -- even big corporations like major international cellphone manufacturers. Their argument, I suppose, is that they sell their phones to retailers or carriers who do business in the state but they themselves do not do business in the state. I have not run into this with a website but I find it hard to believe that every website in existence has to have an agent for service in every state just because the website is accessible in every state.
In this case, the TOS said Michigan law applies, and provided an address in Michigan. So it may be true that under Michigan law they were required to have an agent in Michigan. But if they did not have such an agent, it merely means they broke Michigan law -- it does not relieve the plaintiff of the obligation to serve the defendant under the Federal Rules. However, I saw in another comment that the court found there was proper service, so service was effected somehow, regardless of whether there's an agent in Michigan or not. Mostly likely they just mailed the Michigan address, which may be enough.
Yea, I would think that's obvious.
I'm just amazed that people running businesses do shit like this, and then when it gets publicized they keep digging.
Isn’t the real problem here the credit reporting agencies, which are infamous for the inaccuracy of their records and criminal shadiness of their business practices? At least one of them (TRW) decided that the best way to address its awful reputation was to simply change the company name.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.