Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

Caveat emptor ("let the buyer beware") in Internet online purchasing

<< < (2/2)

40hz:
Buyer beware for sure.

But the Kleargear story is a bit more nuanced. You can put anything you like in your 'terms and conditions of sale'. But that doesn't mean that such terms are either enforceable - or legal - depending on the jurisdiction your customer lives in.

Kleargear's move looks very much like it was motivated primarily by petty spitefulness if the reports I've read (Popehat and Techdirt have both covered this story) are anything to go by.

Public Citizen has since elected to provide legal representation for the Palmers. A copy of the demand letter their attorneys have since sent to Kleargear can be found here.

Of interest are the relevant paragraphs that call attention to the fact that Kleargear's terms are illegal or unenforceable and their subsequent actions have likely violated several laws including the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

That's why it's so important to remember that there are genuine and very real protections for the consumer under US law. And it's equally important not to let yourself get into the habit of thinking you're absolutely powerless in the face of an abusive contract or company. Don't assume there's nothing that can be done. Ceding the battle without a fight is the first step towards serfdom.

So yes, Caveat and all that. But also: In Ius Voco Spurius

 ;) 8)

IainB:
@40hz: Thanks for the info and links. That's a great lawyers letter from Public Citizen!

"Sue the bastards", yes, by all means, but look at the wrongs and damage apparently done by Kleargear. Malicious/spiteful and illegal, deliberately and intentionally distressing and financially disruptive to their victims over an extended period of time.
Where are the checks and balances to protect the consumer from such deliberately false/erroneous posting of indebtedness to credit agencies? How did that happen?
Having a legal remedy is all well and good, but how did it happen in the first place? That it can (a) happen at all, and (b) continue and be aggravated over a period of time must surely indicate that something is seriously amiss regarding adequacy of consumer protection.

The victims should not have been subjected to such an extended onslaught until the lucky event of a white night - in the shape of Public Citizen - coming into the picture.

I would suggest that the thing to do to protect consumers from psychopathic predators - e.g., such as Kleargear seem to be - would be to give wide publicity to the case and for consumers to boycott the company, cancelling all existing orders in progress. Shut them down for unacceptable behaviour.
It looks like Kleargear are getting the publicity now - the Streisand Effect. The people who run the company and who are responsible for the sustained attack on the victims in this case should equally be given some publicity.
Let there be light...

40hz:
Shedding light may take a little more time since Kleargear is apparently a big believer in the "untouched by human hands" notion of product delivery. At least if the inability of anybody to actually reach a human sentient at Kleargear is anything to go by.  

The company also went to somewhat unusual (albeit completely legal) lengths to shield the ownership's name(s) from public view. Not unheard since 'silent partners' and 'hidden shareholders' have existed as long as corporations have. But it certainly becomes questionable for Klearger's ownership in light of this debacle.

No matter. It goes to the courts now. And those wheels "grind slow but exceeding fine" as even Prenda Law is discovering.
 8)

J-Mac:
Here's a link to the Wayback Machine's copy of the KlearGear.com Terms of Use with the so-called Non-Disparagement Clause in it. They admittedly added this clause after the purchase in question was made and then took it down a day or two after this story broke on KUTV2. The clause itself is quoted below.

Link to Terms with Non-Disparagement Clause:  http://web.archive.org/web/20120627211945/http://www.kleargear.com/termsofuse.html

Non-Disparagement Clause

In an effort to ensure fair and honest public feedback, and to prevent the publishing of libelous content in any form, your acceptance of this sales contract prohibits you from taking any action that negatively impacts KlearGear.com, its reputation, products, services, management or employees.

Should you violate this clause, as determined by KlearGear.com in its sole discretion, you will be provided a seventy-two (72) hour opportunity to retract the content in question. If the content remains, in whole or in part, you will immediately be billed $3,500.00 USD for legal fees and court costs until such complete costs are determined in litigation. Should these charges remain unpaid for 30 calendar days from the billing date, your unpaid invoice will be forwarded to our third party collection firm and will be reported to consumer credit reporting agencies until paid.

--- End quote ---

Wow! What a complete bonehead move! And to think that we old farts always thought it was the used car salesmen who were the real experts in fleecing folks.

And if KlearGear.com wants to come after me for posting this.......  Nyah nyah nyah!   

Jim

IainB:
@J-Mac: Thanks for the Wayback link. Good find.
If I saw Ts&Cs like that in a company, I'd never do business with them in the first place.
In the UK, under the Unfair Contracts Act, that would probably be an unfair contract, by definition, and therefore illegal/unenforceable.

Amazing that they can even think they could get away with it in the US.
To draw up Ts&Cs like that - even without the "Non-Disparagement Clause" - they presumably would have to have had a lot of trouble from unsatisfied customers.
I wonder why that could be?    :tellme:

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page