Kleargear, in its slimy shyster strategies, has marginalized itself and destroyed its own reputation with its insouciant, heedless acts. Long after they had been left in shreds, their sporadic responses remained all bravado and no substance.
The result of this new law will be a wholesale diminishing of the sorts of misdeeds Kleargear has become infamous for, and even should they themselves skirt the issue, their terms will be invalid in the States and the credit reporting agencies they used to give their intimidation clout, will no longer accept their directives at face value. At that point, they'll be literal legal deportees. When other countries begin to follow suit, they'll be no more.
Hello, I am a professional fucker. With merely some earthy malfeasance and a fucker's wheel, I create fakery with my own two hands. Useful around the house, yet praised as fine art too, fuckery is really coming into its own in the 21st Century, and I'm here to teach you how you can make fine fuckery too. For pleasure, commerce, or to make your own statement, learn fuckery and you can call yourself a fucker too!
Absolutely! Contract law can be, and often is garbage! They can't arrest you and throw you in jail, but they can make your life miserable. The key is there is always supposed to be some trigger by which you AGREE to it, and thus, to be bound by it. Otherwise the entity covered by the contract runs afoul of the law for that reason alone. It is a constant and eternal fight to argue those point in each laborious case?.but that's the system!
Got it. Well, your expanded point almost answers itself. The keys lie in the terms "truthful statements", "public concern", and "power of the state".
The initial triggering transaction was one covered by civil law. This need not and does not directly involve the State as a party. It is, at its basis, "business law" in which contracts may have been abrogated, but no law of the state was presumed, within the context of that abrogation, to have been broken. NDCs exist because there is no certainty that a given applicable statement is, in fact, truthful. It is a determination between NGEs, again, no state involvement required.
Contract "law" is only enforced via contract. Defamation does not rise to the level of criminal law, thus the penalties for it are set, either in the contract, or in the penalty phase of a finding and judgment supporting one or the other party to whom the contract applies. Just as infractions thereof don't rise to a level beyond civil law, neither does it do so as a legal matter of PUBLIC concern, whoever much we may decry it.
All taken together, and though civil law is bracketed within the governmental framework of laws, it is not suppressed or manipulated by, as you say, the power of the State. Contract law is as we see it because it endeavors to protect parties beyond the scope of actual legislated law. Finally, ridiculous as it may seem, it is held to be in force until challenged. Thus if my contract says if you step in a crack on my sidewalk you owe me $100, it is presumed to be correctly drafted?until challenged. Thus all the crappy contracts and suspicious "fine print" we see.
I don't disagree with you, but one might say the same of any libel. If you would respond that some libelous speech is convincing, pernicious, and hard to detect, again, I would agree... and say exactly the same regarding NDCs.
It does. However that logic would, at its most distilled, reduce law to a few more than the 10 Commandments (minus a few, plus a few.)
New law doesn't always break new jurisprudent ground, sometimes it streamlines it, or focuses it, or clarifies it in cases where the more general admonition is neither efficient nor expedient.
Moreover, the good old internet provides additional questions of identity, proximity, and fallibility - as this case amply showcases.
I detest and disdain Kleargear, and I have posted about them numerous times, but, in truth the concept of a non-disparagement clause is not entirely without merit.
Imagine a psycho customer, an imagined slight, and a vendetta to trash the vendor (in this case the victim.) This is what NDCs are supposed to be for, club-fisted though Kleargear's use of it. And don't pish posh the idea, either. Any perusal of the early days of the Web reveals this rhetorical situation to be (or have been) quite real. I think everyone's take on KlearGear's owners as egocentric bully scam artists is right on the money. I think NDCs need to be written in more restricted, fairer language. However, I don't think you can judge a company on merits solely by the fact they have one. It ought to be one of several factors carefully scrutinized in your judgements.
World court law cannot be argued in a domestic case entirely within the U.S. (or any country where the case is entirely within the countries' jurisdictional boundaries. The only exceptions are when the country in question is presumed not to have a government, or severe human rights cases. Had KlearGear listing its offices outside of U.S. borders, Vic might have had a thread of an argument. The papers service argument is no different than any process service dodging that happens every day in the United States. Hey, Vic can CLAIM lack of knowledge, lack of service, but judges have been wise to THAT tactic, like, FOREVER. No the argument he is making is first year law school stuff that wouldn't geed a passing grade. My instinct says Vic knows this too. When he suggests the monetary claim may be filed again, that clinches it. He is simply, and with full awareness, thumbing his nose at the proceedings regarding KlearGear. "Nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah! Try and get me! You can't get me, I'm too high in the tree! Here! (dumps coffee can) Eat dirt!" Sorry for the stage play, but this is exactly what this scofflaw is doing, IMO.
Kleargear, in its slimy shyster strategies, has marginalized itself and destroyed its own reputation with its insouciant, heedless acts. Long after they had been left in shreds, their sporadic responses remained all bravado and no substance.
The result of this new law will be a wholesale diminishing of the sorts of misdeeds Kleargear has become infamous for, and even should they themselves skirt the issue, their terms will be invalid in the States and the credit reporting agencies they used to give their intimidation clout, will no longer accept their directives at face value. At that point, they'll be literal legal deportees. When other countries begin to follow suit, they'll be no more.
Re: Crazy Laws
You just need a nice dose of Dr. Huxley's Soma Tablets. You'll see everything in a better light.
Fuckery
Hello, I am a professional fucker. With merely some earthy malfeasance and a fucker's wheel, I create fakery with my own two hands. Useful around the house, yet praised as fine art too, fuckery is really coming into its own in the 21st Century, and I'm here to teach you how you can make fine fuckery too. For pleasure, commerce, or to make your own statement, learn fuckery and you can call yourself a fucker too!
This gives me a great trademark idea!
Do you suppose my trademark of the stylized phrase "?ber L?ser" encircling an illo of Paul Ingrisano's head would fly?
Re: Re: Uh, no.
Absolutely! Contract law can be, and often is garbage! They can't arrest you and throw you in jail, but they can make your life miserable. The key is there is always supposed to be some trigger by which you AGREE to it, and thus, to be bound by it. Otherwise the entity covered by the contract runs afoul of the law for that reason alone. It is a constant and eternal fight to argue those point in each laborious case?.but that's the system!
Re: Re: Re: Re: To be fair....
Got it. Well, your expanded point almost answers itself. The keys lie in the terms "truthful statements", "public concern", and "power of the state".
The initial triggering transaction was one covered by civil law. This need not and does not directly involve the State as a party. It is, at its basis, "business law" in which contracts may have been abrogated, but no law of the state was presumed, within the context of that abrogation, to have been broken. NDCs exist because there is no certainty that a given applicable statement is, in fact, truthful. It is a determination between NGEs, again, no state involvement required.
Contract "law" is only enforced via contract. Defamation does not rise to the level of criminal law, thus the penalties for it are set, either in the contract, or in the penalty phase of a finding and judgment supporting one or the other party to whom the contract applies. Just as infractions thereof don't rise to a level beyond civil law, neither does it do so as a legal matter of PUBLIC concern, whoever much we may decry it.
All taken together, and though civil law is bracketed within the governmental framework of laws, it is not suppressed or manipulated by, as you say, the power of the State. Contract law is as we see it because it endeavors to protect parties beyond the scope of actual legislated law. Finally, ridiculous as it may seem, it is held to be in force until challenged. Thus if my contract says if you step in a crack on my sidewalk you owe me $100, it is presumed to be correctly drafted?until challenged. Thus all the crappy contracts and suspicious "fine print" we see.
Re: Re: To be fair....
I don't disagree with you, but one might say the same of any libel. If you would respond that some libelous speech is convincing, pernicious, and hard to detect, again, I would agree... and say exactly the same regarding NDCs.
Re: Re: To be fair....
It does. However that logic would, at its most distilled, reduce law to a few more than the 10 Commandments (minus a few, plus a few.)
New law doesn't always break new jurisprudent ground, sometimes it streamlines it, or focuses it, or clarifies it in cases where the more general admonition is neither efficient nor expedient.
Moreover, the good old internet provides additional questions of identity, proximity, and fallibility - as this case amply showcases.
Re: Uh, no.
Incorrect, for the reasons I've already outlined.
To be fair....
I detest and disdain Kleargear, and I have posted about them numerous times, but, in truth the concept of a non-disparagement clause is not entirely without merit.
Imagine a psycho customer, an imagined slight, and a vendetta to trash the vendor (in this case the victim.) This is what NDCs are supposed to be for, club-fisted though Kleargear's use of it. And don't pish posh the idea, either. Any perusal of the early days of the Web reveals this rhetorical situation to be (or have been) quite real. I think everyone's take on KlearGear's owners as egocentric bully scam artists is right on the money. I think NDCs need to be written in more restricted, fairer language. However, I don't think you can judge a company on merits solely by the fact they have one. It ought to be one of several factors carefully scrutinized in your judgements.
Point being?.
World court law cannot be argued in a domestic case entirely within the U.S. (or any country where the case is entirely within the countries' jurisdictional boundaries. The only exceptions are when the country in question is presumed not to have a government, or severe human rights cases. Had KlearGear listing its offices outside of U.S. borders, Vic might have had a thread of an argument. The papers service argument is no different than any process service dodging that happens every day in the United States. Hey, Vic can CLAIM lack of knowledge, lack of service, but judges have been wise to THAT tactic, like, FOREVER. No the argument he is making is first year law school stuff that wouldn't geed a passing grade. My instinct says Vic knows this too. When he suggests the monetary claim may be filed again, that clinches it. He is simply, and with full awareness, thumbing his nose at the proceedings regarding KlearGear. "Nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah! Try and get me! You can't get me, I'm too high in the tree! Here! (dumps coffee can) Eat dirt!"
Sorry for the stage play, but this is exactly what this scofflaw is doing, IMO.
Re: The disparagement clause WAS on KlearGears site
You are correct, there. My only supposition, therefore, is that he was referring to himself, in some sort of meager penance.