Full Version: BallStars-Be Careful
From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#20]
23 Jun 2006
To: precisionlaser [#19] 23 Jun 2006
I'm pretty sure there will be no direct response from Ballstars.
People will have to draw their own conclusions, which I'm sure many have.
From: precisionlaser [#21]
23 Jun 2006
To: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#20] 23 Jun 2006
From: UncleSteve [#22]
23 Jun 2006
To: precisionlaser [#17] 23 Jun 2006
Just out of curiosity (being nosey?), does Ballstars assign territories to their distributors or is it open season for anyone and everyone who can find a phone number?
From: precisionlaser [#23]
23 Jun 2006
To: UncleSteve [#22] 23 Jun 2006
From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#24]
23 Jun 2006
To: precisionlaser [#21] 23 Jun 2006
The topic of industry suppliers, competing for our business, isn't a new one.
Where there used to be a line in the sand, now there is none.
We look forward to periodic updates, as you attempt to close the book on this matter.
From: bobkat [#25]
24 Jun 2006
To: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#24] 24 Jun 2006
From: UCONN Dave & Lynn too (DANDL48) [#26]
24 Jun 2006
To: bobkat [#25] 24 Jun 2006
From: bobkat [#27]
24 Jun 2006
To: UCONN Dave & Lynn too (DANDL48) [#26] 25 Jun 2006
From: UncleSteve [#28]
24 Jun 2006
To: bobkat [#27] 24 Jun 2006
They may NOT win the suit, but you better be ready to pay for YOUR attorney if they decide to sue for damages. Especially if you were not a direct party to the incident and just a provocateur.
From: bobkat [#29]
24 Jun 2006
To: UncleSteve [#28] 24 Jun 2006
Show me an example of someone being sued for calling a boycott on a product, or service. Groups boycott things all the time. Right now, Jesse and Al are calling for a boycott of BP for price gouging. Christian groups call for a boycott of sponsors of TV programs they don't like. It is not illegal, and in the case of Jesse and Al (Jackson & Sharpton), it is a way to shake down these companies for money; they have been doing it for years.
A perfect example would be Bill Oreilly calling for a boycott of all French goods: if there was a lawsuit to be had, the French Govt. has plenty of money to bring the suit, and Fox news has plenty to lose.
EDITED: 24 Jun 2006 by BOBKAT
From: UncleSteve [#30]
24 Jun 2006
To: bobkat [#29] 24 Jun 2006
>NORWOOD FILES LAWSUIT
>
>INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA (March 2, 2004) -Norwood Promotional Products
>announced today that the company has filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Federal
>District Court for the Southern District of Indiana claiming violations of
>federal and state antitrust laws. The action was taken against a group of
>distributors in an effort to extinguish alleged anti-competitive activities
>conducted by named defendants that has damaged Norwood's ability to conduct
>business.
>
>CEO Tom Roller stated, "We are taking action against those distributors who
>have attempted to damage our company and to interfere with our right to do
>business. All other avenues have been exhausted. We are taking this and
>other steps to make sure that business within our industry can be conducted
>fairly and in accordance with the laws of this country."
The ball is in YOUR court now, Mr. Kat.... :P
From: bobkat [#31]
24 Jun 2006
To: UncleSteve [#30] 24 Jun 2006
I appreciate that, but that doesn't tell me what it is they allegedly did. Did they take on exclusive territories and tie up distributorships for large parts of the country and then refuse to either relinquish said distributorships or sell the product? That would effectively render Norwood impotent, and any distributorship contracts may prevent them from conducting business directly in those areas. Of course, I am only speculating, since the fact set was incomplete, but that is an entirely different animal than someone saying on an internet forum that they will refuse to buy any products from any particular company. We have no hold on this company to keep them from going out and doing business with anyone they choose. (Which is what the problem was in the first place). That is what constitutes anti-trust violations; the key being our having some legal ability to stop them from conducting business, and then banding together to do so.
If I used Ballstars products, and they did me like they did Mark, (allegedly), I would be 100% comfortable with my legal position in coming on here and saying "these guys engage in unethical business practices, (or sell substandard merchandise, or whatever), and I refuse to do business with them and you should too" My suggesting that anyone else boycott Ballstars (or whoever), is not binding on anyone here, and you can all tell me to go jump in the lake, (and some of you have!). Actually I HAVE said something very similar on here concerning "you know who". Back at ya :P
From: UncleSteve [#32]
24 Jun 2006
To: bobkat [#31] 24 Jun 2006
Starting to sound a bit familiar?
The supplier sued for attempting to destroy their company by badmouthing them and calling to stay away from them and any supplier that plays "both side of the street". Though the supplier eventually lost the final case, they put one (two?) of the distributors in bankruptcy because of the high cost of defending the suit and another managed to have his business insurance policy defend him and then drop him after the case was over.
From: Engravin' Dave (DATAKES) [#33]
24 Jun 2006
To: bobkat [#25] 24 Jun 2006
Bobkat,
You do not want to go there. You may be 100% right, but do you have deep enough pockets to defend that belief?
From: bobkat [#34]
24 Jun 2006
To: UncleSteve [#32] 24 Jun 2006
Again, you have distributors who have contractual responsibilities with the company, working together to restrict the business of the company. Completely different than this scenario.
Anybody can sue you if they can find some crooked lawyer to take the case (and their money). Note also that they LOST the suit. If they sue me, all they will get is the debt on my equipment; you can't get blood out of a rock!
From: Engravin' Dave (DATAKES) [#35]
24 Jun 2006
To: bobkat [#31] 24 Jun 2006
Steve,
You hit it right on the head. This is the lawsuit that will get many people on forums to tread lightly with their negative comments.
I think that lawsuit was settled. I know of one who ended filing bankruptcy because of the expense of the legal defense. I know you are likely aware of who that was.
EDITED: 24 Jun 2006 by DATAKES
From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#36]
24 Jun 2006
To: bobkat [#25] 24 Jun 2006
We supply a venue for the discussion of people's personal experiences.
Who knows? There may be people with good things to say about Ballstars.
Over the years, on this forum, I've been very critical of certain industry suppliers and manufacturers, to the point where some people felt I was pushing the limits of being challenged legally.
With the truth and facts on my side, I was comfortable in my allegations.
During those allegations, the word "Boycott" never crossed my lips.
That act goes beyond personal experiences and isn't one I would consider becoming involved with.
From: UncleSteve [#37]
24 Jun 2006
To: Engravin' Dave (DATAKES) [#35] 24 Jun 2006
I also want to protect this forum from such happenings.
From: Engravin' Dave (DATAKES) [#38]
24 Jun 2006
To: UncleSteve [#37] 24 Jun 2006
From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#39]
24 Jun 2006
To: Engravin' Dave (DATAKES) [#38] 24 Jun 2006
I agree.
Cream rises to the top...and...well...the opposite holds true for ethically-challenged companies.
Show messages: 1-19 20-39 40-59 60-71