Wondering1968

Uniform Commercial Code

42 posts in this topic

I am hoping to have a discussion with an attorney that has experience with the Uniform Commercial Code, specifically Article 2.

 

I am an online reseller and currently enjoy really good success with a pretty significant platform, not Amazon or Ebay.  They have recently made drastic changes to their refund policy that completely eliminates the sellers' input or decision making process. It's important to note that the sellers are 100% owners of all the merchandise, as this site only provides the platform to sell it on in which they collect a commission for their efforts.  The issue is these decisions are based on zero merit from the consumer and are often given regardless if the reasoning is valid. There is no regard to other legal issues regarding returns as far as potential health concerns for certain products. 

 

The site has a seller's forum that we are allowed to ask questions or vent but as many corporations, when you start questioning them directly there is immediate retaliation. When this decision was first being tested as they put it, a seller who seemed to have knowledge with the UCC, posted a copy of Article 2 in the response and was stating that the site had no legal right to make decisions on returns of products that they did not control.  It's clear that this seller is not an attorney but clearly had experience in at least studying this article, as she explained her position very professionally and refrained from "name calling" or other tactics that suggest it's just hot air. 

As I stated, I am hoping to have a real conversation with an attorney with experience in this arena. I am NOT simply wanting advice, if there is something here and needs attention drawn to it, I am all for taking what legal steps are necessary.  At the very least I would love to hire an attorney to draft a C&D letter, if there is something here.  I also doubt that it would be very difficult to bring other sellers into the complaint and turn it into something along the lines of Class Action. 

I will not disclose the company name on here as I will discuss that with the attorney I decide to work with. I can say this about them. In 2015 it was estimated they were generating as much 50mm in monthly revenues.  They are a US based company and were formed in 2011.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm certainly not going to analyze Article 2 for you and I hope you have lots of money to pay an attorney to do it.

 

Have you read it all the way through? Perhaps you should and find something in it that supports your desire for a remedy.

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2

 

I doubt if there is anything in Article 2 that prohibits your third party "platform" from making it's dispute resolution rules that the seller AGREES to by virtue of placing his product for sale on that platform.

 

You are free to sell your products in some other manner and make and enforce your own refund rules but I don't see you having any leg to stand on for making the "platform" change its procedures.

 

Good luck trying.

 

PS: If you want a REAL conversation with an attorney, make an appointment with one and bring your checkbook. He'll give you as much time as you are willing to pay for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since I am not an actual attorney, it would be completely pointless for me to read it, as the law is more about creating definitions versus actual definitions. Thus, the reason for a HELP forum.  

 

I actually didn't realize that an attorney would consider taking money for advice, SMH!  Thanks for the most obvious response, your posts keep climbing.  Since I did in fact make reference to that very thing, is it not obvious that I am willing to put my money where my mouth is?  It might have been that you missed that because you were so focused on your attempt at a snide remark, to overlook the very obvious. 

Since you use the words "I doubt" this would suggest you yourself have actually no knowledge of this Article, therefore why post?  Just a boring night or something?  

In case it wasn't obvious enough, I am not seeking an attorney locally as it would be very easy to connect the dots and retaliate against me. I have seen them retaliate for the most minor of disagreements,  this would be a no brainer for them to retaliate against me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's unclear to me what the purpose of your post is.  If you want a private consultation, contact an attorney in your unidentified state and set up an appointment.  If you have questions that you'd like folks here to address, then you should post them.  That notwithstanding, I have the following observations:

 

First of all, Article 2 of the UCC (which has been adopted, with some modifications, in every state except Louisiana) governs contracts for the sale of goods.  That means it governs your relationships (as a seller) with the persons who buy your goods.  However, it has little or nothing to do with your relationship with the company that operates the "platform" through which you sell your goods.  That relationship is governed entirely by your contract with the company.  I don't know if you have an express contract or whether the contract merely arises out of your agreement to the site's terms of services, but that's something you need to read and understand.  It may very well be that, by using the "platform," you agree to the dispute resolution process you described.  While that process might be less than satisfactory from a due process perspective, if you agreed to it, then you are bound to it and your recourse if you don't like it is to use a different "platform."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I appreciate the intelligent response.

 

As I have said earlier though, I do not want to seek an attorney in my state of residence, as I don't want to risk any retaliation unless of course it can and does move forward.

 

There is no written or e-sig agreement with this platform. To be a seller you simply create an account, setup a pay to institution and list your items. There are "partner terms" but these have nothing to do with anything that resembles a TOU. They merely identify an approx. number of opportunities you will receive in any given week and what that exposure will cost you.  The site is very basic in terms of how it's established and what is in the guidelines. There are no specific set of rules that are in writing, they often just say treat people as professionals. It's not a well ran organization despite their very impressive success. I sell on Amazon and the business acumen between Amazon and this outfit is night and day. I say this because I sincerely think they just don't know any better. There are a lot of decisions that are made that would cause any business person to shake their head in amazement.  

I understand there is no question as I am trying to determine if there is grounds here for misconduct on their part, thus I don't know the question to ask.  I can only explain the situation that is going on and provide any answers to help clarify. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you misperceive the purpose of this site.  It is not a legal HELP site.  It is closer to a legal discussion site.  The folks who post here are loathe to give advice and do not do research or tutorials.  You should realize that the UCC is typically taught in law school as a four credit course which usually requires about 60 hours of in-class instruction plus perhaps three times that in outside class study.  So a lawyer saying they believe the UCC means something is entitled to do so until he or she spends a few hours researching the question.

 

Having said all that, I agree that the UCC does not apply to your situation.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The seller that posted a copy of UCC Article 2 obviously did not understand it. First, as pointed out, Article 2 of the UCC does not govern your relationship with the platform that you are using to sell your goods. It does apply to your sales with your customers. Second, a number of the provisions of Article 2 are simply default provisions that apply unless the parties have agreed to something else. What that means is that the parties are free to agree to change those default provisions in their contracts.

 

Unless your contract with the platform is for some fixed period of time (e.g. 1 year, 5 years, etc) the platform is almost certainly free to change the future terms of service at any time and is also free to terminate your participation on that platform at any time. In that circumstance, if you make a fuss about the new dispute rules with customers the platform could just kick you off rather than deal with the hassle of your complaints about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Wondering1968 said:

As I have said earlier though, I do not want to seek an attorney in my state of residence, as I don't want to risk any retaliation unless of course it can and does move forward.

 

I don't really understand what this means, but it's probably not important.

 

 

15 hours ago, Wondering1968 said:

There is no written or e-sig agreement with this platform. To be a seller you simply create an account, setup a pay to institution and list your items.

 

And in doing so, you almost certainly clicked on something to the effect that you agree to the platform's terms of service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, pg1067 said:

 

I don't really understand what this means, but it's probably not important.

 

 

And in doing so, you almost certainly clicked on something to the effect that you agree to the platform's terms of service.

You don't understand what retaliation means?  Ok...

 

Again, since you clearly have NO idea which site it is, for you to presume that there are terms of service is just foolish.  There are NO TERMS OF SERVICE OR TOU.  I said it already in plain English, if there is a different language that would help you understand it better, please let me know and I will be happy to fire up Google Translate and get that for you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as the rest, which I admittedly gave up reading as a pattern was quickly forming.

 

I have actually talked to a very reputable law firm that has many dealings with UCC and specifically how it relates to e-commerce.  

 

They are looking into potential violations based on my stories. They actually believe there is something here, presuming of course my stories check out as accurate.  I am talking to the the other sellers about pursuing a CA suit if the C&D does not wake them up.  

I have learned a very valuable lesson about online law forums. They are clearly dominated by the ambulance chasing portion of the industry.  This makes sense to me now, as actual successful attorneys would not have the time necessary to just keep posting into the 10s of thousands.  My mistake for presuming that a forum established around a professional industry would be anything but that.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wondering1968 said:

They are looking into potential violations based on my stories. They actually believe there is something here, presuming of course my stories check out as accurate.  I am talking to the the other sellers about pursuing a CA suit if the C&D does not wake them up.

 

Good luck with that. The law firm you talked with has had the benefit of actually seeing the relevant documents and evidence you have. We have not. What we have told you here is true: UCC Article 2 does not relate to your agreement with the platform as the arrangement just between the two of you is not for the sales of goods. It is for the provision of a service. It does relate to your sales of goods to your customers. It may also affect the interaction of the platform with your customers. But without knowing exactly how your business and the platform work, no one here can comment on that.

 

Your lawyer may have found some good claim to pursue for you. But did the lawyer say specifically that it was based on Article 2? What is the theory your lawyer is pursuing? Your lawyer may or may not be chasing a long shot, but again since we don't no one here can comment on that.

 

1 hour ago, Wondering1968 said:

I have learned a very valuable lesson about online law forums. They are clearly dominated by the ambulance chasing portion of the industry.  This makes sense to me now, as actual successful attorneys would not have the time necessary to just keep posting into the 10s of thousands.  My mistake for presuming that a forum established around a professional industry would be anything but that.  

 

You then are assuming things you do not know. Successful lawyers do participate here. But there also a number of nonlawyers participating here as well. As for the number of posts, perhaps a little more information will put those numbers in perspective. I have been participating at this site for over 15 years. So my 18k posts on this site works out to an average of 3-4 posts a day. Not a whole lot. I'm not spending hours and hours here. While this site has been revamped a number of times over the years, it has kept the count of posts made by members from the very beginning.

 

What you need to realize is that comments on a site like this are necessarily general in nature because of the limited information we have concerning your situation. We know only what you tell us, and you intentionally did not tell us everything. The lack of detail means we can only tell you generally what the situation is. Even the best lawyer cannot tell you much on limited information. It is always a good idea to consult your own lawyer in your state because of that. Online forums like this one are never a substitute for specific legal advice and should never be used for that purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Tax_Counsel said:

 

Good luck with that. The law firm you talked with has had the benefit of actually seeing the relevant documents and evidence you have. We have not. What we have told you here is true: UCC Article 2 does not relate to your agreement with the platform as the arrangement just between the two of you is not for the sales of goods. It is for the provision of a service. It does relate to your sales of goods to your customers. It may also affect the interaction of the platform with your customers. But without knowing exactly how your business and the platform work, no one here can comment on that.

Again, there are no documents. The law firm that is investigating whether or not wrong doing is taking place, really got no more information from me than this forum did. I simply emailed them and they responded and it eventually led to a phone call that led to an appointment.  

 

Your lawyer may have found some good claim to pursue for you. But did the lawyer say specifically that it was based on Article 2? What is the theory your lawyer is pursuing? Your lawyer may or may not be chasing a long shot, but again since we don't no one here can comment on that.

Yes!  Based on their opinion and if my stories check out and can be authenticated, there are potential Article 2 violations, specifically 2-707 & 2-710.  It only makes sense that there are laws to protect the sellers as well, not just consumers.  

4 hours ago, Tax_Counsel said:

 

 

You then are assuming things you do not know. Successful lawyers do participate here. But there also a number of nonlawyers participating here as well. As for the number of posts, perhaps a little more information will put those numbers in perspective. I have been participating at this site for over 15 years. So my 18k posts on this site works out to an average of 3-4 posts a day. Not a whole lot. I'm not spending hours and hours here. While this site has been revamped a number of times over the years, it has kept the count of posts made by members from the very beginning.

 

What you need to realize is that comments on a site like this are necessarily general in nature because of the limited information we have concerning your situation. We know only what you tell us, and you intentionally did not tell us everything. The lack of detail means we can only tell you generally what the situation is. Even the best lawyer cannot tell you much on limited information. It is always a good idea to consult your own lawyer in your state because of that. Online forums like this one are never a substitute for specific legal advice and should never be used for that purpose.

Oh believe me...I am fully aware that 90% of the comments are general (aka worthless), as some people just have nothing better to do with their lives. They make comments that have no relevant information to the topic, they just need to be heard.  

Likewise, not everything should be seen as wanting legal advice, some may just want a legal opinion. Totally different animal, but what do I know, I am not an attorney.. Thank God!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Wondering1968 said:

Yes!  Based on their opinion and if my stories check out and can be authenticated, there are potential Article 2 violations, specifically 2-707 & 2-710.  It only makes sense that there are laws to protect the sellers as well, not just consumers.  

 

 

UCC § 2-707 simply says that some persons, including agents of the principal, may be considered to be in the position of the seller. So, it is possible (as I noted earlier) that both you and the platform might be considered sellers of goods for your customers. In order to determine that, one would have to look at the details of how the platform works and your relationship to the platform. As you’ve not shared any of that relevant information, I cannot comment on that.

 

UCC § 2-710 states that an aggrieved seller may recover from a buyer certain incidental damages, including “any commercially reasonable charges, expenses or commissions incurred in stopping delivery, in the transportation, care and custody of goods after the buyer’s breach, in connection with return or resale of the goods or otherwise resulting from the breach.” Thus it is a remedy that the seller of goods has against a buyer that the seller incurs as a result of the buyer canceling the deal or breaching the contract. The problem is that nothing about this speaks directly to your relationship with the platform. It deals with the relationship between the seller and buyer of the goods being sold. Again, perhaps it might be applicable as a result of the particular arrangement you have with the platform, but it is certainly not obvious what your lawyer thinks he or she can make out of this.

 

I’m skeptical that you can succeed just based on these two sections absent something unusual in the way your deal works with the seller’s platform. But let us know how it turns out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Wondering1968 said:

You don't understand what retaliation means?  Ok...

 

I certainly understand the meaning of the word and am baffled that you concluded that I was only referring to one of the 36 words in the sentence to which I was referring.  To state it differently, what I don't understand is why you think consulting with or retaining an attorney might result in retaliation or what you mean by "unless of course it can and does move forward."

 

 

10 hours ago, Wondering1968 said:

Again, since you clearly have NO idea which site it is, for you to presume that there are terms of service is just foolish.

 

I disagree since not a single one of the hundreds of web sites of this sort that I've seen over 20+ years doesn't have terms of service or some sort of seller's agreement.  Especially since the money relating to a transaction apparently runs through this site, it is simply not believable that there isn't something governing the transaction.

 

 

10 hours ago, Wondering1968 said:

I have actually talked to a very reputable law firm that has many dealings with UCC and specifically how it relates to e-commerce.

 

Notwithstanding your concern about retaliation?  In any event, I'm sure some portions of the UCC relate to e-commerce, but as two lawyers have already told you, your relationship with the owner of the selling platform is not governed by Article 2.

 

 

3 hours ago, Wondering1968 said:

Based on their opinion and if my stories check out and can be authenticated, there are potential Article 2 violations, specifically 2-707 & 2-710.

 

That doesn't make sense.  For starters, it is absolutely impossible to "violate" either of the sections indicated.  Section 2-707 merely defines the term "person in the position of a seller" and provides that such a person "may as provided in this Article withhold or stop delivery (Section 2-705) and resell (Section 2-706) and recover incidental damages (Section 2-710)."  How exactly does your lawyer think this section could be "violated"?  Section 2-710 discusses what "incidental damages" a seller may recover in the event of a breach by the buyer.  Again, how could that be "violated"?

 

 

3 hours ago, Wondering1968 said:

It only makes sense that there are laws to protect the sellers as well, not just consumers.

 

No one ever suggested that wasn't the case (although whether one perceives a particular law as "protect[ing] the sellers" is largely a matter of opinion).  Article 2 of the UCC provides a whole host of provisions that might be useful to an aggrieved seller.  What we told you -- in very "plain English" -- is that Article 2 of the UCC governs your relationship with your buyers but has little or no relevance to your relationship with the owner of the selling platform.  If "there is a different language that would help you understand it better, please let me know and I will be happy to fire up Google Translate and get that for you."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/19/2016 at 11:10 AM, pg1067 said:

 

I certainly understand the meaning of the word and am baffled that you concluded that I was only referring to one of the 36 words in the sentence to which I was referring.  To state it differently, what I don't understand is why you think consulting with or retaining an attorney might result in retaliation or what you mean by "unless of course it can and does move forward."

You're right! My apologies. The other words in that sentence are used a million times a day in the english language, I jumped to the conclusion that the larger seldom used word was giving you difficulty. My bad!  I didn't honestly think it would have been any of the "other" words.  If you do not know how retaliation works, then you clearly DON"T understand the word.  

On 10/19/2016 at 11:10 AM, pg1067 said:

 

 

 

I disagree since not a single one of the hundreds of web sites of this sort that I've seen over 20+ years doesn't have terms of service or some sort of seller's agreement.  Especially since the money relating to a transaction apparently runs through this site, it is simply not believable that there isn't something governing the transaction.

 

Exactly what does that mean?  So you're familiar with 100s!  WOW...I mean there are only 100s of thousands of e-commerce sites out there, but apparently you have them covered..  SMH! Just so you know, using 100s to compare to 100s of thousands, would not be considered a large enough sample size to presume you are an expert, however egotistical, absolutely! 

 

Notwithstanding your concern about retaliation?  In any event, I'm sure some portions of the UCC relate to e-commerce, but as two lawyers have already told you, your relationship with the owner of the selling platform is not governed by Article 2.

Well a very large and clearly successful law firm, would disagree.  I doubt that they spend time on forums though, just saying.  As lawyers, I'm presuming anyway, everyone knows it's not actually the law that gets argued, it's what you can spin to seem as if it's law. At least that is what the skilled attorneys do, completely different skill set versus calling an insurance company and saying "let's settle", who care's about my clients long term needs. 

On 10/19/2016 at 11:10 AM, pg1067 said:

 

 

 

That doesn't make sense.  For starters, it is absolutely impossible to "violate" either of the sections indicated.  Section 2-707 merely defines the term "person in the position of a seller" and provides that such a person "may as provided in this Article withhold or stop delivery (Section 2-705) and resell (Section 2-706) and recover incidental damages (Section 2-710)."  How exactly does your lawyer think this section could be "violated"?  Section 2-710 discusses what "incidental damages" a seller may recover in the event of a breach by the buyer.  Again, how could that be "violated"?

Ok. I am not an attorney but when all of these events started taking place and the OP made this thread in the forum, it made absolute sense to me. The fact that we are the sellers of our own goods and this site has no vested interest in our goods, the fact that they have stripped the decision making process of refunding/returning items and not allow us the right to dispute those refunds/returns, can and is being seen as a violation. This is the seller's rights under the UCC, thus our rights to protect our own merchandise is being violated.  Why is that so hard to understand?  Lawyer's right?  Phoenix University.    This is the angle they are working and is most likely going to lead to a CA suit, if they ignore the C&D letter.   

On 10/19/2016 at 11:10 AM, pg1067 said:

 

 

 

No one ever suggested that wasn't the case (although whether one perceives a particular law as "protect[ing] the sellers" is largely a matter of opinion).  Article 2 of the UCC provides a whole host of provisions that might be useful to an aggrieved seller.  What we told you -- in very "plain English" -- is that Article 2 of the UCC governs your relationship with your buyers but has little or no relevance to your relationship with the owner of the selling platform.  If "there is a different language that would help you understand it better, please let me know and I will be happy to fire up Google Translate and get that for you."

I understand completely, it's the difference between lawyers who are not afraid to go in front of a jury/judge and put on a show, versus those that are much more comfortable behind a computer/phone and just settling one case after another, without ever seeing the inside of a courtroom.  In laymen's terms, its the difference between renting a 1500 sq. foot office or having an entire floor of a high rise or hell, having the entire high rise.  The cream ALWAYS rises to the top. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will try one more time.  In legalese, the internet listing service serves in the historical position of a "broker".  A broker is an entity that tries to bring a buyer and a seller together.  A broker is not the agent for either party and has no authority to accept or demand anything of either party EXCEPT as such authority is given to the broker. The broker is distinguished from an agent, who is an entity authorized to act on behalf of one of the parties.

 

The problem you have described results from your disagreement with the assumed power of the internet sales instrument to rescind transactions that have occurred between you and your buyer.  It is a question of agency law, not the UCC. It would be governed by the agreement you entered into when you signed on to the sales forum.  If you had no agreement then that is a mistake on your part.  If there was an agreement and the listing broker violated the agreement, you are entitled to damages.

 

And, I have spent a lot more time in court than the overwhelming proportion of the fat cat lawyers sitting in their penthouse suites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, RetiredinVA said:

I will try one more time.  In legalese, the internet listing service serves in the historical position of a "broker".  A broker is an entity that tries to bring a buyer and a seller together.  A broker is not the agent for either party and has no authority to accept or demand anything of either party EXCEPT as such authority is given to the broker. The broker is distinguished from an agent, who is an entity authorized to act on behalf of one of the parties.

 

The problem you have described results from your disagreement with the assumed power of the internet sales instrument to rescind transactions that have occurred between you and your buyer.  It is a question of agency law, not the UCC. It would be governed by the agreement you entered into when you signed on to the sales forum.  If you had no agreement then that is a mistake on your part.  If there was an agreement and the listing broker violated the agreement, you are entitled to damages.

 

And, I have spent a lot more time in court than the overwhelming proportion of the fat cat lawyers sitting in their penthouse suites.

Of course... I was wondering when the jealousy would come out.  It is so stereotypical of people to start name calling those that are significantly more successful in the same industry than that of themselves.  Instead of taking stock in their own short comings of operating a business, it has to be because the super successful are fat cats.  News Flash, there is a very damn good reason why. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, pg1067 said:

If all you wanted to do was be an ****, you should have said so from the very start.

Oh...gotcha. You start the BS but when I don't bow down to your ignorance, you now are offended.  SHOCKING!!

 

I'm sorry that I won't bow down to immature behaviors of keyboard cowboys.  As I have stated, there is a very clear reason why you have the physical time to post over 50K times on a forum. I really don't care how long you have been on here, it still is a colossal waste of time that could be better spent on a business, you know, REALITY! That alone speaks volumes.  Those that have a successful business, physically don't have the time to waste on such non-sense, they are focused on a successful business. Without a successful business you can't truly appreciate the time it takes to operate that type of business.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/21/2016 at 2:24 PM, Wondering1968 said:

Ok. I am not an attorney but when all of these events started taking place and the OP made this thread in the forum, it made absolute sense to me. The fact that we are the sellers of our own goods and this site has no vested interest in our goods, the fact that they have stripped the decision making process of refunding/returning items and not allow us the right to dispute those refunds/returns, can and is being seen as a violation. This is the seller's rights under the UCC, thus our rights to protect our own merchandise is being violated.  Why is that so hard to understand?  Lawyer's right?  Phoenix University.    This is the angle they are working and is most likely going to lead to a CA suit, if they ignore the C&D letter.

 

The problem with that argument is that you are ignoring that the seller may agree to give up or modify any right that he or she has. The platform is telling you that to sell using its service you will need to agree to handle customer disputes in a certain way. You don’t have to do that if you don’t want to, but then the platform has no legal obligation to let you sell using its services, either. If the above argument is the one your lawyers are pursuing then I seriously question whether they are anywhere near as good as you seem to think they are. Of course, it may be that you have not accurately conveyed the theory your attorneys plan to use.

 

Your understanding of the law and how law firms work is not very accurate, and it's leading you to assume some things that are not correct. Maybe there is some good claim to pursue against the platform, but nothing you’ve said here suggests one. And all we can go on is what you have told us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Tax_Counsel said:

 

The problem with that argument is that you are ignoring that the seller may agree to give up or modify any right that he or she has. The platform is telling you that to sell using its service you will need to agree to handle customer disputes in a certain way. You don’t have to do that if you don’t want to, but then the platform has no legal obligation to let you sell using its services, either. If the above argument is the one your lawyers are pursuing then I seriously question whether they are anywhere near as good as you seem to think they are. Of course, it may be that you have not accurately conveyed the theory your attorneys plan to use.

 

Your understanding of the law and how law firms work is not very accurate, and it's leading you to assume some things that are not correct. Maybe there is some good claim to pursue against the platform, but nothing you’ve said here suggests one. And all we can go on is what you have told us.

Aye Aye Aye... I really don't know how to convey this any other way. The English language has been established and defined for THOUSANDS of years, you can spin it anyway you want, BOTTOM LINE THERE IS NO TOU, TERMS OF SERVICE OR ANY OTHER COMBINATION OF WORDS YOU WANT TO USE TO TRY AND MAKE THAT POINT.    Jesus, you can lead a horse to water.  I am fully aware that a platform can dictate what is done and when and why, but that is after there is something there to sign, like Amazon, Ebay, Wish & Bonanza all have.   As I have said countless times, it's like talking to children, they simply did it and are doing it. I told the attorneys the exact same thing. They got it from square one on the first try. To put to bed the only obvious poor attempt at discrediting them or me, to this date no money has changed hands, they are investigating because they feel strongly that it is a winnable case.  If they deem it appropriate to pursue and that my facts are in fact accurate, I will them pay them to draft the C&D letter in hopes it will wake them up to either their lack of knowledge or just outright attitude towards the law.  

I should not have to be the one to explain this to you but apparently it's necessary.  Let's say hypothetically that there was this TOU that everyone is astonished does not exist.  Not everyone that has a brilliant idea is capable of executing that brilliance.  There are just some that are damn poor at operating a business.  Now to my point. Just because something is written and signed does not mean it circumvents the law, if it is in violation of a city, county, state or federal law, it is a violation. It makes no difference who signed it or drafted it.  In the US only the respective governing body can draft language to become law and thus can be the only ones to repeal a law.  If it was really that easy then hell I would contact the best damn defense attorney and give him/her $100K and tell them I need a well drafted letter stating that I and only I, have carte blanche on bank robberies, fraud, embezzlement, and ponzi schemes. Would i be exempt from prosecution because I have this document, it of course would be notarized, you know to make it all official like. 

 

Af far as you suggesting that YOU know more than a very successful Law Firm that operates 3 floors of a High Rise in a downtown location of a very large city, might be a good time for a reality check.  I could only speculate what their rent would be, but easily well north of 6 figures a month, this in business terms  strongly suggests a level or two of success.  This is what they do, they argue complex cases that take major knowledge. 

The reality is this, your a tax attorney so unless you have clients that need specific help in taxes, your relevant 3 or 4 times a year.  I mean if I have an issue with my heart, I won't  set an appointment with a orthopedic specialist.  When it comes to complex business law, I'll take advice from those that have made it their game and have clearly done well with it. In the business world the obvious signs of success are the barriers to entry for respect among your peers and clients, not how many posts you can make in a calendar year.  As the saying goes, that and $5 will get you a cup of coffee. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

English as a language at all has existed for approximately 1500 years. English as the language we understand today, perhaps 500 years (not even one thousand). So THOUSANDS of years is a gross exaggeration.


If that is an example of your accuracy in both describing and understanding your situation, perhaps you'll forgive us if we don't take your word as being the last one on the subject.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Wondering1968 said:

Aye Aye Aye... I really don't know how to convey this any other way. The English language has been established and defined for THOUSANDS of years, you can spin it anyway you want, BOTTOM LINE THERE IS NO TOU, TERMS OF SERVICE OR ANY OTHER COMBINATION OF WORDS YOU WANT TO USE TO TRY AND MAKE THAT POINT.    Jesus, you can lead a horse to water.  I am fully aware that a platform can dictate what is done and when and why, but that is after there is something there to sign, like Amazon, Ebay, Wish & Bonanza all have. 

 

Then you miss the point. I never said there had to be a TOU. I'll accept that (as unusual as it would be) that there is no TOU or contract of any kind since you say that is what the situation is. I can only go by the facts as you give them. But if there is no contract, no TOU/TOS, no agreement with this platform of any kind whatsoever, then you have no right to sell on that platform without the consent of the platform. So if you want to sell on that platform, you need to do so under the conditions the platform wants or it can kick you off. Without a contract you have no protection against the platform simply saying it doesn’t want to deal with you and kicking you out. It's like if you are standing on my property without a lease or contract of any kind that would give you a right to be there. I can kick you off my property at any time because you have nothing giving you a right to be there. If you want to stay on my property in that circumstance you conform your behavior while there to what I want or I boot you off. Same with the platform. It’s a pretty basic concept; I'm surprised you don’t seem to be familiar with it.

 

Your lawyers may be good. They may not. Telling me how impressive their offices are, how big the law firm is, etc., tells me nothing about how good the lawyers are. Maybe those things are how you define how good a lawyer is. I don't rate lawyers based on that. I rate them based on their knowledge of the law and effectiveness in representing their clients. I've known lawyers at the biggest, most impressive looking law firms in the states in which I practice who were idiots and lawyers at small firms with basic offices who were absolutely brilliant. I’ll say it again: your lawyers might be good — but just based on what you have said here I’m skeptical of that. Perhaps you just don't fully understand the theory your attorneys are planning to pursue. Perhaps you just haven’t done a very good job explaining it. But whatever it is, you have so far not laid out a very compelling argument for your position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.