First unaided tickets, now this...

[Likwid]

better be careful what you say about Ohio businesses.

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2010/06/10/engine-supreme-court.html?sid=101

[redrocket04]

Spend $3k on an engine, modify it, decide its not what you want, get (rightfully) denied a refund, so bash the place online. Seems normal to me.

[Likwid]

The lawsuit isn't unreasonable... the door it opens is.

[redrocket04]

I agree with that.

[chevysoldier]

What happened to freedom of speech? Comments negative or positive, show what kind of business you may be dealing with. If some shop does crap work and comments or WORD OF MOUTH are negative, the business will take this hit, as they deserve. If it is positive, then the business deserve more business as a reward for doing the right thing. This is such bull shit.

Edited June 11, 2010 by chevysoldier
Rewording my thoughts

[Likwid]

"But Chevy! If people aren't held accountable for their lies how will we possibly live?!?!?"

I'm so tired of the courts treating the "internet" as an interstate mode of communication... instead of just seeing it as a new mode of communication completely.

what's next? Ohio businesses suing people in China for saying Ohio companies are producing lead based toys? lol

[Todd#43]

The lawsuit isn't unreasonable... the door it opens is.

"But Chevy! If people aren't held accountable for their lies how will we possibly live?!?!?"

I'm so tired of the courts treating the "internet" as an interstate mode of communication... instead of just seeing it as a new mode of communication completely.

what's next? Ohio businesses suing people in China for saying Ohio companies are producing lead based toys? lol

I'm not sure what door the decision opens, but libel is libel.

The question here is the venue. As an Ohio business owner I see this as a step in the right direction. Its much more cost effective for me to sue IN Ohio as opposed to bringing suit in the state where the "statements" were made.

I think they got this one right.

[chevysoldier]

I'm not sure what door the decision opens, but libel is libel.

The question here is the venue. As an Ohio business owner I see this as a step in the right direction. Its much more cost effective for me to sue IN Ohio as opposed to bringing suit in the state where the "statements" were made.

I think they got this one right.

Yes they should be able to sue across state lines. But suing because negative comments are made online? That I don't agree with.

[Disclaimer]

I don't see anything wrong with the verdict. As much as it pains me, Todd is right - libel is libel.

But, it's only libel if what the guy posts isn't the truth and they can show monetary damages that resulted from the libelous communication.

[chevysoldier]

But, it's only libel if what the guy posts isn't the truth and they can show monetary damages that resulted from the libelous communication.

yes

[Todd#43]

Todd is right

THAT is signature material.

Obviously, in this case the statements went beyond a "pissed off customer" and into the realm of what the business's attorney considered libelous. At that point a lawsuit is warranted and the business should be able to sue in Ohio as opposed to the location where the alleged libelous statements were made.

The right decision was made in this case.

[Haya!]

I'll throw in my useless input; I agree. I agree so long as it doesn't overstep freedom of speech which in this case it's not. Guy screwed his own shit up, expected the company to foot the bill, got laughed out the door, raged on the internet for being a moron/began lying to people to harm said company, got sued. Good deal.

[Casper]

I have mixed feelings on this, but I think in the end it was appropriate. When I worked for Jegs, I was privileged to meet a few of the Kaufmans. They build good quality stuff, and stand behind their work. As I understand this one (and someone please correct me if I'm wrong), they were in the middle of the return process. The customer complained it was defective like 6 mos after the bought it. Kaufmans wanted to make it right, so they told him to send it back. They said if it was found defective, they'd refund the entire purchase price. It was then they realized the block had been modified, and they denied the refund. I don't know what the guy posted about Kaufman Racing, but if he said anything other than documented fact they had a legit libel case against him. Now if all he said were facts, then I have a huge problem with this.

Here's the whole court case:

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:YRJpDWAeXMAJ:pub.bna.com/eclr/07cv14_41808.pdf+kaufman+racing+won%27t+return+block&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjYO7AAh_0Iq3rtvhYB-yS3DWpBByipOzxiK7voadv9Jc92of7zVffGolrpRKI2EWT2Vx7pdifHdJU8bpK-VATskg9_Saru-GG9okUNDC_x2SK3X4Ph5L8GOmrsS0pDAQfS0gft&sig=AHIEtbQWrpR4QEnWy1STadHE3OPRG3cIzA

Page 6 has some stuff he posted.

Edited June 11, 2010 by Casper
added court case

[Haya!]

I have mixed feelings on this, but I think in the end it was appropriate. When I worked for Jegs, I was privileged to meet a few of the Kaufmans. They build good quality stuff, and stand behind their work. As I understand this one (and someone please correct me if I'm wrong), they were in the middle of the return process. The customer complained it was defective like 6 mos after the bought it. Kaufmans wanted to make it right, so they told him to send it back. They said if it was found defective, they'd refund the entire purchase price. It was then they realized the block had been modified, and they denied the refund. I don't know what the guy posted about Kaufman Racing, but if he said anything other than documented fact they had a legit libel case against him. Now if all he said were facts, then I have a huge problem with this.

Here's the whole court case:

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:YRJpDWAeXMAJ:pub.bna.com/eclr/07cv14_41808.pdf+kaufman+racing+won%27t+return+block&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjYO7AAh_0Iq3rtvhYB-yS3DWpBByipOzxiK7voadv9Jc92of7zVffGolrpRKI2EWT2Vx7pdifHdJU8bpK-VATskg9_Saru-GG9okUNDC_x2SK3X4Ph5L8GOmrsS0pDAQfS0gft&sig=AHIEtbQWrpR4QEnWy1STadHE3OPRG3cIzA

Page 6 has some stuff he posted.

Interesting. Based on what they are using as evidence though I don't know if I would call that "intent to injure". Unless he knows he screwed up the block and is posting it anyways. I guess we wouldn't know that unless we were him though...

However, why would you even send a block back in the first place expecting to get a refund after A: The block is sold as-is implying no warranty and B you have modified it? It seems like he brought this battle upon himself. The company was already going out of it's way to help him out and with the mods he should have known what they were going to say. I mean I feel sorry for the guy with his luck if he really didn't screw the block up but read the fine print. If you want a warranty don't purchase an as is block and expect a refund. Then, get all pissy when they don't give it to you.

Also, the guy waited 8 months to make his case so I'm pretty sure if it did have a warranty it would have been expired by that point anyways. This guy just doesn't have a leg to stand on. Modified block, no warranty, waiting 8 months to make an issue, then bashing a company for what you knew was going to happen? It may not be enough to prosecute someone for but it doesn't make him look too good either.

[Todd#43]

I don't know what the guy posted about Kaufman Racing, but if he said anything other than documented fact they had a legit libel case against him. Now if all he said were facts, then I have a huge problem with this.

Here's the whole court case:

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:YRJpDWAeXMAJ:pub.bna.com/eclr/07cv14_41808.pdf+kaufman+racing+won%27t+return+block&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjYO7AAh_0Iq3rtvhYB-yS3DWpBByipOzxiK7voadv9Jc92of7zVffGolrpRKI2EWT2Vx7pdifHdJU8bpK-VATskg9_Saru-GG9okUNDC_x2SK3X4Ph5L8GOmrsS0pDAQfS0gft&sig=AHIEtbQWrpR4QEnWy1STadHE3OPRG3cIzA

Page 6 has some stuff he posted.

Interesting. Based on what they are using as evidence though I don't know if I would call that "intent to injure".

If you read some of the postings contained in the complaint the guy basically said he was doing it to fuck them up.

Seems pretty cut and dry to me.

[Haya!]

If you read some of the postings contained in the complaint the guy basically said he was doing it to fuck them up.

Seems pretty cut and dry to me.

LOL ok yea thats a little different

[redkow97]

What happened to freedom of speech? Comments negative or positive, show what kind of business you may be dealing with. If some shop does crap work and comments or WORD OF MOUTH are negative, the business will take this hit, as they deserve. If it is positive, then the business deserve more business as a reward for doing the right thing. This is such bull shit.

It sounds like they were suing for defamation. I can't say "ChevySoldier is a lying cheating crook who sells defective engine blocks" if it's untrue.

the article quoted the lawyer as saying something about the comments being viewed by 5 Ohio residents, thus they were "published" in OH.

You actually only need ONE person to hear/view a defamatory statement for it to be "published."

I wouldn't call it an "open door," it's just saying that the internet doesn't remove you from liability if you make recklessly false statements.

[Disclaimer]

What's Black Tod think about this?

[jporter12]

"ChevySoldier is a lying cheating crook who sells defective engine blocks"

Much nicer than what most say about him!

[chevysoldier]

It sounds like they were suing for defamation. I can't say "ChevySoldier is a lying cheating crook who sells defective engine blocks" if it's untrue.

the article quoted the lawyer as saying something about the comments being viewed by 5 Ohio residents, thus they were "published" in OH.

You actually only need ONE person to hear/view a defamatory statement for it to be "published."

I wouldn't call it an "open door," it's just saying that the internet doesn't remove you from liability if you make recklessly false statements.

lol. When I first read it I misread it so let me say this.

If the guy was denied a refund after 8 months and modifying the block and then made comments for the sole purpose of trying to ruin their business then I agree that he should be sued, across state lines. The business did nothing wrong. But both of these points need to be determined if they are true.

If the business was shady and comments were made for the sole purpose of warning the general public about the bad business, then there is no grounds for the business to sue.

[Likwid]

I agree, in BS cases like this the suit is correct... but who else has paid attention to the whole towing company suing for 300,000.

The point is, there are problems on both sides of this battle, you can't have easy lawsuits and protect both people.

[Disclaimer]

I agree, in BS cases like this the suit is correct... but who else has paid attention to the whole towing company suing for 300,000.

http://www.freep.com/article/20100523/NEWS06/5230525/1320/Fight-with-student-may-wreck-tow-firm

What's wrong with that case? The towing company will lose, but because the kid presented the honest account of the situation and it took off.

Right, wrong, or indifferent -- if you present facts, people can make their own judgments on whether to patronize the business. But if you misrepresent the situation, that's where the law will bite you, and rightly so in a civil matter.

[Likwid]

http://www.freep.com/article/20100523/NEWS06/5230525/1320/Fight-with-student-may-wreck-tow-firm

What's wrong with that case? The towing company will lose, but because the kid presented the honest account of the situation and it took off.

Right, wrong, or indifferent -- if you present facts, people can make their own judgments on whether to patronize the business. But if you misrepresent the situation, that's where the law will bite you, and rightly so in a civil matter.

The student got very lucky here... the lawsuit is called a SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation).... the problem is MOST defendants will drop/change their comments instead of retaining counsel....

Why not make libel a criminal matter instead of civil?

[Todd#43]

Why not make libel a criminal matter instead of civil?

Everything should be criminal instead of civil. Loser (plaintiff or defendant) goes to jail. Sounds good to me.

Oh wait, we can't do that. Practicing law wouldn't be such a lucrative profession, and we'd have fewer lawyers.

Never mind.

[redkow97]

But both of these points need to be determined if they are true.

and those would be questions for a jury. The OH supreme court is only able to rule on whether or not the law allows the suit.

I think the system is actually working as intended here.