Full Version: BallStars-Be Careful

From: UncleSteve [#28]
24 Jun 2006
To: bobkat [#27] 24 Jun 2006

There is a major difference between a "general" boycott like "let's not go to work on any day with a "y" in it and boycotting a specific company.

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

Only cause we love ya and you asked:

>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

Five distributors were sued for discussing boycotting the named supplier for having both a wholesale AND retail division and allegedly going directly to the customer to solicit business after receiving large orders from distributors for the end user customer.

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

Bobkat,

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

Yup! THAT is the suit I was talking about... I know you belong to the other group so perhaps Bobkat will listen if you also back up the story.

I also want to protect this forum from such happenings.

From: Engravin' Dave (DATAKES) [#38]
24 Jun 2006
To: UncleSteve [#37] 24 Jun 2006

I'm the same way. "Boycott " is a bad and unnecessary word to be used on this forum. Frankly, members can state the facts of their experience, and we will likely avoid companies who receive repetitive comments about bad service and/or products.

From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#39]
24 Jun 2006
To: Engravin' Dave (DATAKES) [#38] 24 Jun 2006

David,

I agree.

Cream rises to the top...and...well...the opposite holds true for ethically-challenged companies. :-$

From: Harvey only (HARVEY-ONLY) [#40]
24 Jun 2006
To: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#39] 24 Jun 2006

I think that anyone calling for a boycott here is going beyond the limits of the forum.

Telling your story in a factual basis is allowed and encouraged. Our members are intelligent and will make their decisions in a fully informed manor.

It may have the same basic results, but calling for a boycott is out in my opinion. This has not been discussed at length by the directors of this site, (OK laugh at that statement), but is my personal opinion, and I try to act on my personal ethics at all times that I can.

From: bobkat [#41]
24 Jun 2006
To: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#36] 24 Jun 2006

There may be plenty of good things to say about Ballstars. I have no dealings with them and nothing more than a theoretical interest in the topic. I asked in my first post if anyone had GOOD experiences with them. Like I said, these days you can get sued for anything (or nothing). If you post here and say you will no longer use supplier ABC, you are conducting a personal boycott, whether you use the word or not. If you tell others they shouldn't use them either, are you guilty of being the instigator of a boycott? If others join in and say they too have had negative experiences with supplier ABC (as evidenced in this thread), are all of the people guilty of conspiracy? If that is the case, then Mark better be looking over his shoulder from now on because he did just that in post 4161.10. The paranoia in this thread is so thick you could cut it with a knife. There have been many posts here that are negative toward one supplier or another, (and not just by me!), yet this thread seems to have taken on a life of its own. Although being prudent is a good thing, I refuse to live my life in fear.

From: UncleSteve [#42]
24 Jun 2006
To: bobkat [#41] 24 Jun 2006

Bobkat,

The point seems to be evading you. Anyone is welcome to state the facts in their own case and say they wouldn't use the supplier again.

The problems arise when third parties, ie YOU, talk about and around starting a boycott against a vendor you have never had dealings with. That is instigating, not making public personal experiences.

"Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean no one is following you"

From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#43]
24 Jun 2006
To: bobkat [#41] 24 Jun 2006

Bobkat,

It must be a matter of perception. I'm not seeing the paranoia at all.

If I were living in fear, why would I personally contact Ballstars and make them aware of this thread?

I felt an obligation to bring both sides of this story to light.

I told the owner, if Mark was making patently false statements, I would delete the thread immediately.

I was asked to delete the thread, regardless, but advised against it, on two counts:

1) There's an element of truth to Mark's story. If Mark is completely out of line and making libelous statements, Ballstars should pursue their legal options with him.

2) Deleting this thread, would result in an acrimonius backlash, that would spread through the forum, creating a major disruption.

That's not a theory. It's based on past experience.

No paranoia. Just trying to be responsible and prudent.

From: bobkat [#44]
24 Jun 2006
To: UncleSteve [#42] 24 Jun 2006

That is your personal opinion and has no basis in law. Whether I had dealings with the vendor is irrelevant. (Unless you can find the "instigator statute") I simply posed a question, as a possible solution to a problem.

There is no point that has evaded me, I just don't agree with you. The discussion has changed from what may or may not be legal, to what is acceptable to post on the forum.

Here is the legal part: To be a violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, a boycott must have the effect of denying the supplier's access to the market. The forum is not that powerful, if it were, any negative comments posted here would be actionable.

If the word (or action) of a boycott is not allowed on the forum, that is fine, but lets not confuse law with forum protocol. Some of you don't agree with me on the legal issue, and that is fine. I have no intention of calling for a boycott of anyone. I guess if we haven't been able to persuade each other at this point, we will have to agree to disagree. >.<

From: UncleSteve [#45]
24 Jun 2006
To: bobkat [#44] 25 Jun 2006

quote:

I guess if we haven't been able to persuade each other at this point, we will have to agree to disagree

Agreed! :S

From: Barbara (RGILE) [#46]
27 Jun 2006
To: precisionlaser [#10] 27 Jun 2006

It's too bad that we always get to learn the hard way. It just amazes me how deceitful some people can be over greed.
Good luck, they will get theirs. People like that won't get ahead. They might for a while, but not for long.
Barb

From: precisionlaser [#47]
27 Jun 2006
To: Barbara (RGILE) [#46] 28 Jun 2006

Thanks, Barbara...I think they're getting "theirs" already...

Show messages: 1-7 8-27 28-47 48-67 68-71

Full Version: BallStars-Be Careful

Back to thread list | Login

© 2024 Project Beehive Forum