Enough is enough.

I don't think anyone besmurched (is that a word?) the machine. Just the idea of suing a website operator for independent comments made on the sites forum. If you want to sue, sue those who make the libelous comments, not the provider of the forum.

If the letter which is linked to below is in fact the same letter as was posted at ALOA I really don't see anything actionable at all. Note that I do not know that it is in fact the same letter.

The writer is stating his own personal experience with the individual machines he used. He makes no general statements as to the quality of the companys product line at large nor any derogatory statements with regard to Gravelle other than that he was dissatisfied with the customer service he received. The words "I returned it to the factory and requested a refund. That was on Feb. 1,

2000 and as of July 2000 I still do NOT have a refund" seem a little misleading when he later states "Finally, after months of being unable to secure a refund, I reluctantly accepted a third machine". Obviously he didn't have a refund at the time the letter was written because he had accepted another machine. All that said unless it can be proven that the writer was being entirely untruthful with regard to his experience with the specific machines he used I don't see how the plaintiff is going to prevail. This is very likely the main reason no lawyer would touch it.

The letter reposted from Clearstar can be found in the Google archives. It begins after the first post on the webpage.

If the letter referenced here is in fact genuine and I were the original writer I would aggressively counter sue based on some of the statements Mr Gravelle makes. The acussation of libel if untrue is certainly libelous in and of itself.

A number of Mr Gravelles' responses can be found here:

Assuming the letter I read is indeed the one in question that's exactly what Webb did. He stated his opinion as directly related to his own personal experience. No way did he cross the line.

To clarify: The original letter was posted on Clearstar. A copy was then, according to a poster identifying himself as Mr. Gravelle, repeatedly posted at the 2000 ALOA show, allegedly by a competitor. Another copy was then later posted to alt.locksmithing.

Let's see, you don't like Ray because when you had a problem with his software, but you don't like Gordon because he filed a suit after he perceived he was smeared? Seems to me there is a big difference.

The operative term here is "perceived". Everyone who files a frivolous lawsuit perceives they were wronged in some way. Frequently the perception is theirs and theirs alone. If the letter in question is the only one I've seen then perception is about the extent of it. The writer stated he wasn't happy with the machines. He stated why. He stated that he wasn't happy with the customer service. He stated why. If that's libel, everyone who has ever stated disatisfaction with a company and/or product is in danger of being sued. IF and I say IF once again, the "libel" in question is nothing more than the letter I have seen and posted a link to in this thread then Gravelle/Codepro should be hit with a multi-million dollar judgement on a countersuit for wasting the time of everyone involved.

Reply-To: "Roger Shoaf" snipped-for-privacy@nospamsyix.com References: snipped-for-privacy@nym.alias.net>

-snip the less relevant headers-

I don't see anything libelous about the letter. How come every time I get called for jury duty one of these stupid cases don't crop up? I think it would be fun to be able to send a message to bozo's that they shouldn't be wasting peoples time with this nonsense.

The Nolo Press legal dictionary defines libel as:

An untruthful statement about a person, published in writing or through broadcast media, that injures the person's reputation or standing in the community. Because libel is a tort (a civil wrong), the injured person can bring a lawsuit against the person who made the false statement. Libel is a form of defamation , as is slander (an untruthful statement that is spoken, but not published in writing or broadcast through the media).

It seems to me that the plaintiff in the lawsuit would have to be able to prove that the statements made were untrue, and that Clearstar and the Los Vegas Convention Center knew they were untrue, yet permitted the publication anyway. Sounds to me like the plaintiff is reaching for straws.

Enough is more than enough. I killfiled most of the Treskat discussion some time ago; I'm adding this to the list.

Yes, I agree that customer service is a valid thing to criticise.

Yes, I agree that bad reviews are an occupational hazard and the proper response is either to get that customer turned around or to demonstrate that they're one unreasonable individual.

On the other hand, I frankly find both of these boycot efforts somewhat overblown; there's been too much namecalling and _nobody_ has held the high ground consistantly enough.

Bletch.

(negative

problem with his

no, I don't like ray because of his arrogant attitude and his very poor customer support.

correct.. key words (he perceived). he was mad at the webmaster of clearstar because he wasn't allowed to post his rebuttal on a (paid) site that required a paid membership. if it was so important to him ? he could have simply paid for the chance to set the record straight. he didn't have to sue.. he could have then just refunded Webbs money and moved on.

I don't see a difference. in my book, they are both jerks, period...

Glen,

Let's assume that someone orders 100 duplicate keys to be cut. They send them back and say that your keys do not work to their satisfaction. You whip out your calipers and measure and the keys seem OK. You pin up a lock cylinder and the keys all work. You have several phone conversations with this person, and you discover that they live a hundred miles away, but you will both be in attendance at the home improvement show and they agree to bring their lock to the show to you.

All this time you suspect that they found a place that will cut the keys cheaper or something. Nonetheless you have the blanks on hand to re-cut the keys if in fact your keys were flawed.

So instead of showing up at your booth with their lock, they are standing out side the show passing out pamphlets saying that you are some schlock operator and their 15 attempts to get a refund of your defective product was unsuccessful.

Does this make you a bad locksmith? Are you guilty of bad customer service?

Of course not. I don't think you can compare the two situations though. If he would have given the mans money back then none of his troubles would have happened.

Some people no matter how hard you try, can't be pleased in any way shape or form. If the person were to complain about the keys, I'd bite the bullet and refund his money. One upset customer no matter how wrong that person may be can do a lot of damage to ones pocketbook.

If this same person still talked about me after I refunded his money I'd take him behind the shed for an attitude adjustment. One of us would win and I would think that would be the end of it. If not then we'd have round two. I would not sue him. That would just make for a bigger stink. Even if I sued and won then the big stink created by the law suit would make me look bad because I sued a customer over the keys.

The key words in your post are if if if. Have you seen the letter? The one I have seen did not defame anyone.

Clearstar does permit rebuttle. That he, Mr. Gravelle needed to buy a membership was his complaint.

Yes we do, and they are clogged with frivolous lawsuits very much like this one. The problem is that for someone willing to waste their time, there is really no judicial downside to rolling the dice and dragging people into court for any and every little thing, real, percieved or imagined. Losing plaintiffs SHOULD be responsible for ALL costs sustained by the defendant(s) as well as punitive damages for bringing a flawed case to trial. Unfortunately they are not.

Yes he could have. Most practical people realize however that litigation in this kind of situation is likely not worth the trouble, especially if the parties are located in seperate states. In any case writting the letter didn't deprive him of his right to sue for damages.

Sure there are many of them. The seller however always has the option of making a refund. If they don't and leave the customer unhappy there is the very real possibility that they will suffer from negative word of mouth as a result. The smart business decision here was to make the refund.

I will agree with you it was less than even handed. Assuming of course that it is true. Have you heard Webbs version on that? I haven't so I have only heard one side.

So you like the machine. Other people that own the machine likely are fond of it too. Wouldn't the best course of action have been to demonstrate the hell out of it at AOLA 2000 and simply show as many people as possible that the criticism wasn't deserved? Instead the guy sues and alienates 10 times as many people as the initial letter did. I've read lots of initial criticisms of products where numerous people came to the products defense and basically told the OP that he/she didn't know what they were talking about. If the machine is really as good as you seem to think then that would have happened here as well, if he had only given it a chance.

Bottom line the lawsuit (which he will never see a dime from) is costing him more customers than the letter ever would have. Even if there was something actually defametory in the letter (there wasn't)a jury is made up of, for the most part consumers. They are going to be more likely to see the dissatisfied customers side than that of the business.

sue

his

after he

wasn't

required

could

straight.

fact libel. If the

inviting a suit to

disagree, like I stated above. "if it was so important to him ? he could have simply paid for the chance to set the record straight".

on.

reason.

again, "he could have then just refunded Webbs money and moved on".

filed a suit for a refund and

agree... but he does have the right to free speach. I would have done the same thing..

make a refund?

cash sale ! other than that, no...

agreed to in Nevada

instead decides

thats also gordans side of the story. who knows if he actually agreeded to address Webb's dissatisfaction or not ?

experience but I

straight shooter.

consider yourself lucky not to have had the misfortion of dealing with ray. after all this, I am sure gordan is a straight shooter..

compared to other code

price as an HPC

my experience first

glad you're happy with the product. however the product is not the only issue here.

sentences with a capital

want to consider

perhaps an exclamation

agree, if I were writing a book or a letter ? however, doesn't apply on usenet. many don't use capital letters...

wasn't

required

at liberty to

poster).

anyone can sue anyone for anything. doesn't mean they are right or that they will get a judgment.

the site (at no

correct..

been no lawsuit, and they

Clearstar did no wrong.. all he had to do was join the site and he would have been able to possibly take care of this.

soon do

depends ? if I was in the wrong ? I would have made every effort to rectify the situation without any help from the courts. I sure wouldn't have jeperdised my business by filing against my customer..

my2

So if a newspaper printed something false and damaging about you, would you be keen to buy a display ad to defend yourself?

I think you should be careful of what you wish for. It might sound good, but there are many reasons a lawsuit might fail along the way like missing a deadline or just plain running out of money or will to fight.

Sounds like a small claims type of case to me. Not a big deal really. Besides, if Webb had the time to travel from Kentucky to Nevada to smear someone, he had the time to sue over the product.

Employees need to be paid, as does the light bill. If a money back satisfaction guarentee is important to someone, the time to check on this is before the sale, not after.

As far as smart business goes, hindsight is always 20/20, my point was folks in this forum that have never even used the machine were going way over board in their attack.

I read Webb's letter when it was posted here. I even initialy assumed the machine was a POS and Gordon was a fink. Gordon's defense some days later caused me to rething the issue and when I was in the market for a code machine, I put the contraversy aside and arrainged to give the machine a trial.

I actually had sent the machine back saying no thank you (I arrainged this in advance) but Gordon impressed me by going the extra mile. I had my concerns that there were no provisions for replaceable bushings in the carraige assembly. He said Bushings? if you want bushings I can do that, if I do, will you reconsider the machine?

The machine came back with bushings and I accepted the machine.

Perhaps, but my point was with the unreasonable attack on the guy that designed and built the machine. He posts a little info-blerb about a locksmith related product and he is attacked by a whole lot of regular posters that have probably never even bench tested the machine.

Just out of curiosity was ALOA ever named in the lawsuit?