[Doug Christie]

Originally Posted by Brian Baker

Doug, a vendor can reserve the right to change their policy at any time, that's their right. Provided the vendor is not in violation of any law, there's nothing the customer can do legally if a vendor tells them they will no longer address their grievances directly and instead directs the customer to a third party mediator. In other words, you can consider the policy "retroactive".

So if the vendor misreprisented themselves, the "forum selection clauses and/or alternate dispute resolution" wouldn't/shouldn't stand?

[PONTIAC DUDE]

Never noticed all that mumbo jumbo legal talk before. Hummmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Never saw such a detailed statement on products before on any site.

I'm no lawyer, but I understand it to read that any info pulled from their site, including picures without expressed consent is libel? That they might pursue action. That any issues are not going to be handle by K & M or KRE?

They are no longer going to discuss any issues without a lawyer?

Correct me if I'm wrong?

[Steve C.]

I would be curious to know if one were to read about a product in a magazine and contact the company to purchase that product do you have a contractual obligation to read their website ? And if you did not read it prior to the sale, and NO paperwork was supplied with the product, does the info on the website still apply ?

[KenB]

Not a lawyer but I think this is factual

Regarding copyright, all I have to say is "Fair Use" doctrine.


This may not be factual
The disclaimer on the website means nothing for a "walk-in customer", written contracts do.
Ordering via a website.... I don't know, but I wouldn't buy from any merchant that expects customers to give up the right to a court vs. arbitration.
Any legalese can be posted or put in a contract, but that doesn't necessarily mean its enforceable. For example, in most states, a waiver regarding negligience won't hold water in court, but that doesn't stop such a clause in many a contract.

Again, anyone know how long the mumbo jumbo has been there?

KenB

[Tim Corcoran]

It's funny, we are all trying to be lawyers here but most of us don't have a clue about the law, me included. If I were stuck with an MR-1 block I would be organizing a class action law suite, and hire a good lawyer that knows the law and will force KRE to be rsponsible.

Tim C

[Red Box Rebel]

1. A class action is not out of the question at this point. However, we are still going to give K&M and KRE their full 60 days to respond to the statutory notice/demand letters.

2. If they decide to ignore and/or refuse to resolve the problems, they will be sued. If they step up and take care of their customers, everyone will know about the final solution.

[SGTGTO]

I AM NOT A LAWYER... This is public information

Ohio Consumer Protection Law R.C. 1345.01 et seq



§1345.02 Unfair or deceptive consumer sales practices prohibited.

(A) No supplier shall commit an unfair or deceptive act or practice in connection with a consumer transaction. Such an unfair or deceptive act or practice by a supplier violates this section whether it occurs before, during, or after the transaction.

(B) Without limiting the scope of division (A) of this section, the act or practice of a supplier in representing any of the following is deceptive:
(1) That the subject of a consumer transaction has sponsorship, approval, performance characteristics, accessories, uses, or benefits that it does not have;


(2) That the subject of a consumer transaction is of a particular standard, quality, grade, style, prescription, or model, if it is not;


Here is the whole thing..
http://www.ohiolemonlaw.com/ocll-site/ocll-cplaw.html

It is eerie... it also reads as if they are talking about their engine block! "performance characteristics, uses, benefits that it does not have" and "particular standard, quality, grade, prescription...."

And for the arbitration deal..

§1345.04 Jurisdiction

The courts of common pleas, and municiple or county courts within their respective monetary jurisdiction, have jurisdiction over any supplier with respect to any act or practice in this state covered by sections 1345.01 to 1345.13 of the Revised Code, or with respect to any claim arising from a consumer transaction subject to such sections.


109:4-3-10 Substantiation of claims in advertising.

It shall be a deceptive act or practice in connection with a consumer transaction for a supplier to:

(A) Make any representations, claims, or assertions of fact, whether orally or in writing, which would cause a reasonable consumer to believe such statements are true, unless, at the time such representations, claims, or assertions are made, the supplier possesses or relies upon a reasonable basis in fact such as factual, objective, quantifiable, clinical or scientific data or other competent and reliable evidence which substantiates such representations, claims, orassertions of fact; or

(B) Fail, upon the written request of the attorney general or the attorney general’s representative, to produce within a reasonable time period specified, writtensubstantiating documentation, tests, studies, reports, or other data in the possession of the supplier at or prior to the time that representations, claims, or assertions are made about the supplier or the supplier’s goods or services.

[Sprocket]

Originally Posted by Doug Christie

Sproket. What if the "forum selection clauses and/or alternate dispute resolution "was added after the fact? Was it on their website when the customers with the boat anchors made their purchases? If it was added in later, after they purchased the boat anchors, would it be retro-active?

Doug, you're absolutely right. Later added disclaimers wouldn't (or at least shouldn't) apply - that would be tantamount to a unilateral modification of the terms of a contract, which are usually void ab initio. (Just thought I'd throw down some latin legalese to show the worthiness of my bar membership.)

I don't know the facts of this KRE stuff, e.g. what kind of contracts or disclaimers they have or don't have or where they have or have not been published or to whom, but to try and impute some sort of bad faith based on these types of clauses being present in a web disclaimer or invoice or other document is plain silly. Generally speaking, if you had an internet business or just a business that sold goods to folks in other states, you would be an absolute fool to not have such provisions in every printed material your customers receive. Obviously, from a consumer's perspective, this stuff ain't very tasty nor would you want to be bound by it, but my point is that just because these kinds of contract terms may be in place, doesn't make the seller bad guys or girls, which seems to be the sentiment of some of the posts.

Don't forget, sometimes these clauses hold up and sometimes they don't, but one thing they don't mean is that you do not have a claim.

[Brian Baker]

It's amazing the things you can find so quickly these days in public records on the internet.

It turns out that K&M technically did not exist prior to last week (11/7/06 to be exact). The Ohio Secretary of States office (that registers businesses and keeps track of their business filing records) shows no records on file for K&M prior to 11/7/06, when K&M PERFORMANCE PARTS, LLC was registered as a business under the agents name of Steven A. Kauffman.

On the same date, KRE did a conversion from a general partnership to a LLC.

It's all public record.

For anyone interested in viewing the information directly, go to the following link below:

http://www1.sos.state.oh.us/pls/port...ON1.SHOW_PARMS

Once there, type in KAUFFMAN RACING EQUIPMENT in the business name "bubble" and perform a plain search. It will pull up two registrations, their old one and the new one. From there you can click on the highlighted areas to see the actual legal documents.

For K&M, type in K & M PERFORMANCE PARTS and do a fuzzy search. It'll pull up a page of business names, K&M is about halfway down the page.

The newest docs that were filled out by the Kauffman's have not been posted yet, but the signed doc from the Ohio Secretary of State has for each transaction.

What does this mean? It means that prior to 11/7/06, K&M technically did not exist, therefore, as far as Ohio state law is concerned, KRE would be considered the producer/manufacturer of any MR1 blocks sold prior to 11/7/06.

[Tom Vaught]

Wonder if any taxes have been paid in the past for that unregistered business in the last year?

Seems like Uncle Sam would be interested in that kind of information.

Tom V.

[Brian Baker]

Originally Posted by Tom Vaught

Wonder if any taxes have been paid in the past for that unregistered business in the last year?

Seems like Uncle Sam would be interested in that kind of information.

Tom V.

Uncle Sam as well as the state of Ohio. It looks like K&M was just a "pseudoname" and everything was run through the back door at KRE...kind of like how I can register my business in my name but call the business something else (ie - on paper it's in my name but the sign on the shop says "Mongo's Cut Rate Widgets" or something like that).

Here's something else to ponder. With KRE not having been registered as a LLC when these defective blocks were sold, if they can't make the customers whole, they've left themselves exposed to the potential for personal assets to be attached should a lawsuit entail out of this mess.

[Phil Goat Nelson]

Originally Posted by Tom Vaught

Wonder if any taxes have been paid in the past for that unregistered business in the last year?

Seems like Uncle Sam would be interested in that kind of information.

Tom V.

Probably all it means is that until 11/7 the business was simply a "sole proprietorship, or possibly partnership", which many businesses are automatically by default if they don't go through the legal process of organizing as a corporation or LLP / LLC. And that would mean their business income would simply be reported under the owner's form 1040.

But it is very interesting that somehow now, in the middle of all else that going on with the controversy, they suddenly discover the benefits of becoming structured as a Limited Liability Corporation. Evidently some lawyer explained to someone that is one way for them to protect their personal assets from lawsuits relating to their business interests.

Great job Brian!

[Brian Baker]

Originally Posted by Phil Goat Nelson

Probably all it means is that until 11/7 the business was simply a "sole proprietorship, or possibly partnership", which many businesses are automatically by default if they don't go through the legal process of organizing as a corporation or LLP / LLC. And that would mean their business income would simply be reported under the owner's form 1040.

But it is very interesting that somehow now, in the middle of all else that going on with the controversy, they suddenly discover the benefits of becoming structured as a Limited Liability Corporation. Evidently some lawyer explained to someone that is one way for them to protect their personal assets from lawsuits relating to their business interests.

Great job Brian!

Don't know if Ohio state law would allow for something like this, but it's plausible I guess. Wouldn't make much sense however to file earnings and expenses in such a manner when there's already a registered business on the premise. Using the already registered business would be much easier...particularly where reporting sales tax from the customer is concerned. My wife is considered "self employed" for her part time job she does through the County's Department of Aging, and every year doing her part of the income taxes is a pain in the tush, what with filing self employment tax, SSA benefits, etc.

[Phil Goat Nelson]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I just meant that as a sole proprietor, federal income taxes sould be filed under schedule C, with form 1040; A partnership as schedule E, under form 1040. State taxes generally follow form, in some cases only a summary form.

But when you're operating as a corporation for example, then you get into a whole different tax situation, and have to file form 1120 corporate return. As an "S Corporation" you get a combination, using form 1120S, but that gets wrapped back into your 1040 also.

All of that however is "a distinction without a difference".........the REAL difference between how they were organized before 11/7 and after 11/7 has to do with the extent to which the personal assets of the owners are exposed to litigation. It will be interesting to see if that really matters though as respects transactions they made before the change in legal status was made.

BTW, I'm not a lawyer, just a retired businessman having some experience in these things.

[Brian Baker]

I was guessing tax lawyer or accountant.;)

[tom s]

I think the whole thing will go back to WHO actually cast the blocks and WHAT exactly was on the purchace order when the order was placed.Hoping the casting co. has liability insurance and the blocks were not cast as ordered.The suit would go back to the deepest pocket.JMO,Tom

[Brian Baker]

Originally Posted by tom s

I think the whole thing will go back to WHO actually cast the blocks and WHAT exactly was on the purchace order when the order was placed.Hoping the casting co. has liability insurance and the blocks were not cast as ordered.The suit would go back to the deepest pocket.JMO,Tom

I agree, unless what was on the purchase order for block material was what they were cast from, then that puts liability back in KRE's pocket. As for machining defects, that's still in KRE's pocket.

[Phil Goat Nelson]

Originally Posted by Rugratman

A LLC corp is smart for them. I am also sure they have Liability insurance, that should cover the defective items.... .

Their insurance will not cover them on defective blocks, as that is not the purpose of business insurance; otherwise insurance would not be affordable to businessess. The "product liability" coverage, if they have it, would protect them on consequential damages however, in case someone got hurt as a result of their faulty product, or it damaged other people's property.

[69 Custom S Vert]

This is how you handle customer service (as opposed to lawyering up)

http://www.chevelles.com/forums/showthread.php?t=151725

[Brian Baker]

John...Just posting public information and facts...that's what the moderators wanted with this new post.