M14forum.com member being sued for his post content!

[Dead Duck]

It's only slander if it's not true.


Watch -

BunnyKid is a BoneHead!

See, no lawsuit.

 

[terrehautian]

It's only slander if it's not true.


Watch -

BunnyKid is a BoneHead!

See, no lawsuit.

yet.

As as the last post on the last page said, if they got orders cancelled because of his comments, I can see the lawsuit.

 

[PaulF]

So, I spent some time sorting through the thread, the complaint, and what history I could find online.

(Some of it has already been discussed here)

Yeah, I'm a little torn...

On the one hand, this would not have been an issue if SEI delivered the goods they had promised on time. To me, that's a big deal. If I pay you for something, I expect to get it...right after you get my money. If you can't fill my order you need to refund my money...immediately. That didn't (appear to) happen, and it (apparently) led to unhappy customers. There are many different ways to come back from that, but suing unhappy customers does not seem (to me) to be a good way to garner good will toward your brand. That is enough for me to look elsewhere for M14 parts.

But...

...and this is a BIG but: I'm not sure I can believe this guy. He certainly appears to be the "squeaky wheel" sort. I don't know. I'm not as active on that forum as I am here, and I don't know the guy from Adam. With the original posts removed, it's hard not to wonder if he didn't just bring this down on himself...you know: play stupid games, and all that. I have to agree with some of the other posts here, though: there is a difference between expressing your opinion and lying to do harm to someone else. It looks all too possible that this guy falls into the second group.

Either way, it is a solid reminder to think twice about what I post online...especially if it is critical toward someone else.

-Paul

 

[92ThoStro]

What will be interesting for me is if Smith does win, to what extent will the damages go to?

I think more damages will come from the bad publicity of suing a customer after said customer has bad service and allegedly lied about insider information...

Will Hammond.be held liable for the lost business stemming.from the lawsuit , or only the lost business stemming from his alleged defamation?

How will that all be calculated? Are they meticulous on how they come up with a figure? And have to provide documentation on each lost sale? Or do they just claim a.number and jury says ye or nay on defamation and judge comes up with a number he or she thinks is fair?

 

[atvdave]

Looks to me like most of the people were pissed at the Jackolope posts than Hammond's. In Jackolope first post he kind of insinuated that he worked for them, but in a different post he stated he did not work for them.

 

[terrehautian]

I think more damages will come from the bad publicity of suing a customer after said customer has bad service and allegedly lied about insider information...

This is a big one, if they win, will their winnings out due the bad publicity?

 

[Bunnykid68]

It's only slander if it's not true.


Watch -

BunnyKid is a BoneHead!

See, no lawsuit.

Your summons for your deposition should be there Monday

 

[92ThoStro]

Also where does the burden fall? I know Smith or whoever has to prove damages.. but damages can result from it.being a lie or truth that escaped.

Does Hammond have to prove his claims? Will he have to oust his source Which could be a friend, family member or even an employee of the company? Or do they have to prove that Hammond lied? What about the mentality/intent? Does that play a role? What if Hammond was just passing along a.rumor he heard and did not intend to damage reputations and had the emails to prove he didn't start the rumor?

 

[s-works]

Anyone that helps this guy invites their name to be added to the suit. Especially if they publicly support him.

 

[Hoosier45]

I heard he's behind the xds recall, too.

 

[CountryBoy19]

This isn't the first time this has ever happened... a few years ago a guy "in the know" kept disparaging AAC saying their contract to produce the suppressors for the SCAR rifle project was cancelled because they couldn't meet performance specs... AAC publicly defended themselves multiple times and gave the guy the chance to back down.... he shat a brick when they filed a defamation lawsuit against them. I can't recall how the case turned out but I believe they settled out of court because AAC had to prove that the guy was laying and do prove that they had to reveal confidential DOD contract documents and they wouldn't do that. They were caught between a rock and a hard place. This doesn't seem to be the case with this lawsuit. I doubt there is anything preventing SEI from revealing the factual information that will prove this guy is lying (if that evidence exists).

FWIW, I do believe there were some suppressor problems with the AAC suppressor on the SCAR project. I think it was over-gassing them so they opted to drill holes in the tube of the suppressor negating some of the suppression but reducing back-pressure at the same time... seemed somewhat asinine to me though, isn't the point of having a suppressor to have it quiet?

 

[HoughMade]

Lawsuit Summary - Smith Enterprise Incorporated v. Jason Edward Hammonds

Trademark infringement (lanham act)

The Lanham Act prohibits several things. It is known primarily as a trademark law, but other parts prohibit false and misleading statements about products. This case falls under the latter provisions. It does not appear to be a trademark infringement suit.

 

[printcraft]

............ There are many different ways to come back from that, but suing unhappy customers does not seem (to me) to be a good way to garner good will toward your brand. That is enough for me to look elsewhere for M14 parts.
................-Paul

No kidding. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. Who would want to deal with people like that?
Bad press for sure.

 

[vitamink]

The Lanham Act prohibits several things. It is known primarily as a trademark law, but other parts prohibit false and misleading statements about products. This case falls under the latter provisions. It does not appear to be a trademark infringement suit.

Agreed, i was just posting what was listed as the cause in the lawsuit when you research recently filed cases. The defendant is being sued because of his "false and disparaging statements" which as you said is encompassed in the lanham act which is why it was listed as it was.

***edit***
i just looked back at my first post. Sorry if that was misleading. I just checked recently filed cases and saw the one listed and made a guess as to why before i had read the PDF. After i read it I obviously guessed incorrectly. I then posted a brief synopsis for those that couldn't look it up themselves just to get the gist of it.

 

[hoosierdoc]

Well, was he correct in his accusations? That's what matters I guess. Filing the lawsuit could be a way for the company to try to say "this is untrue, our products are fine, and we'll sue you if you make up stuff about us". Did the company ever give an explanation for the delays?

 

[churchmouse]

They are off of my list.

 

[Mark-DuCo]

My god, if Hi-point would sue the people that talk bad about their products they could just quit making guns and still make more money than they are now just off the settlements.

(Not bad-mouthing the brand as I have no experience with them, it's just what I see on here)

 

[92ThoStro]

But it is different. You can say you wouldn't trust a hi point.with your life. Your opinion...You could even say your hi point.had reliability issues and kept having to be repaired....a fact

But if you needed a spring and hi point was taking months to mail it out, you couldn't say you know someone who works for hi point.and they said that they are getting service calls for guns exploding, and nobody should.buy them...

Which you just made up out of nowhere just because you don't like the company. You can substitute guns exploding with any.defamatory statement.against the company.or product.

You can say nobody buy a hi point.because they take months to send replacement parts.. a true statement in your situation...

We all know hi point has legendary customer service though. You can buy a broken one and they will give.you a new.one or make yours like new.

But you won't.be sued right.away. you get sued when they call you a liar and then you defend yourself and keep the lie going.

You really don't.need to worry about what you say, just don't say anything that isn't true.

We don't know.as far as this suit goes, the guy could be telling.the truth. But just in general, I can see.the lawsuit has a chance, and.I am not outraged like many in that forum are. Some people think individuals are the ones that sue companies, people need to be reminded they can be held accountable, and the big guy can sue the little guy if he wants. Although it.will.probably garner a lot of negative attention.

 

[Expat]

I guess the Glock Kaboom stories are grounds for suit now...

 

[HoughMade]

SEI has the burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence (over 50%), what Hammond said, that he said it with knowledge of its falsity or reckless disregard for whether it was false or not, that what he said was not true, that damages were caused, and what the damages were (this is in general, there are some specific things under the Lanham Act, but this is gist of it).

Like a criminal case, at trial, Hammond can just hope they don't carry their burden and not present evidence (which, with a preponderance of the evidence standard....practically means he'll lose), or present evidence to challenge one or more of the essential elements of the claim. For instance, maybe he neither knew his statements were false, nor was reckless. Perhaps he had a good-faith basis for saying what he said. He could also just prove that what he said was true.

Like several people have pointed out, there is opinion, then there are statements of (seeming) fact. Here are some hypothetical examples.

If i said: I hate the sights on my M&P. They're horrible- clear opinion
Likewise if I say: I wouldn't be surprised is Smith & Wesson put bad sights on just so people would be forced to buy expensive optional sights- that's still opinion.
However, if I said: Smith & Wesson put bad sights on just so people would be forced to buy expensive optional sights- I'm getting close to the line.
If I said: I know a guy who works in Smith marketing and he showed me a memo that confirms that they put bad sights on just so people would be forced to buy expensive optional sights- that's over the line....unless it's true.