I'm getting taken to court over negative feedback.

2011-06-18 04:18:54

#126

Ty: Mass Media Casualty; +2,398|7162|Noizyland

Can't this Sarah lady see the huge hypocrisy is criticising Camm for not "communicat[ing] with us if there was a problem like our normal customers do," while bringing out the lawyers for a negative feedback comment?

[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon

2011-06-18 04:31:35

#127

Camm: Feeding the Cats.; +761|5356|Dundee, Scotland.

ghettoperson wrote:
rdx-fx wrote:
Personally, I'd change the feedback to "Seller threatened a lawsuit, over a shipping address misunderstanding, on a 99p part"
Then post their threat letter.

Completely factual.

Completely likely to make other customers find another vendor.
This.

Gonna go with this.

for a fatty you're a serious intellectual lightweight.

2011-06-18 04:36:38

#128

Camm: Feeding the Cats.; +761|5356|Dundee, Scotland.

Camm wrote:
ghettoperson wrote:
rdx-fx wrote:
Personally, I'd change the feedback to "Seller threatened a lawsuit, over a shipping address misunderstanding, on a 99p part"
Then post their threat letter.

Completely factual.

Completely likely to make other customers find another vendor.
This.
Gonna go with this.

Left the negative feedback, with that message, then emailed them saying this:

Hi there,

I have revised my feedback. Still negative, I feel your handling of the situation has been brash. To threaten me with a lawsuit over negative feedback for a shipping address misunderstanding is very heavy-handed of you. Furthermore, my brother still lives with my parents and he tells me that absolutely nothing had been sent by you, if it had, my father would have brought it round.

If you feel that this is still unjust, I'll see you in court.

Cameron Robbins

for a fatty you're a serious intellectual lightweight.

2011-06-18 04:38:29

#129

RDMC: Enemy Wheelbarrow Spotted..!!; +736|6953|Area 51

Laugh at their faces and tell them to go bother someone else.

2011-06-18 06:56:10

#130

Camm: Feeding the Cats.; +761|5356|Dundee, Scotland.

RDMC wrote:
Laugh at their faces and tell them to go bother someone else.

Uh. Oh.

Afternoon,

We'll leave it to our solicitors then.

All applicable emails have been forwarded to them to decided the extent of financial claim they wish to put in.

We find it strange you choose to be sued for a 4/5 figure sum when youve admitted you were in the wrong and thus full liability. First customer we've ever had to admit full liability for libel then wish to be sued for thousands. Then commit a further libel.

Anyway its not our issue now.

Regards

Sarah
AVSeller Customer Services

for a fatty you're a serious intellectual lightweight.

2011-06-18 06:59:59

#131

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6858

AussieReaper wrote:
I'm pretty sure the court would dismiss a case like this instantly due to the 99p.

I'm tempted to order from them to leave neg feedback myself. lol

you don't understand libel laws, do you? 100% of libel cases are a functional loss: it's about reputation, not money.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2011-06-18 07:02:12

#132

Aries_37: arrivederci frog; +368|6963|London

lol how did i miss this thread.

Why didn't you just ask them to send you another one, and you'd change the feedback?

edit: this is the douchiest company of all time. Post all this on reddit. Guaranteed front page. See what the public makes of it.

Last edited by Aries_37 (2011-06-18 07:03:20)

2011-06-18 07:03:10

#133

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6858

the thing is, these guys can clearly afford litigation... camm obviously can't... i don't know why he's letting it go this far.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2011-06-18 07:04:21

#134

Hurricane2k9: Pendulous Sweaty Balls; +1,538|6090|College Park, MD

Camm wrote:
RDMC wrote:
Laugh at their faces and tell them to go bother someone else.
Uh. Oh.

Afternoon,

We'll leave it to our solicitors then.

All applicable emails have been forwarded to them to decided the extent of financial claim they wish to put in.

We find it strange you choose to be sued for a 4/5 figure sum when youve admitted you were in the wrong and thus full liability. First customer we've ever had to admit full liability for libel then wish to be sued for thousands. Then commit a further libel.

Anyway its not our issue now.

Regards

Sarah
AVSeller Customer Services

Camm your only option is to nuke their offices.

https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/36793/marylandsig.jpg

2011-06-18 07:04:32

#135

11 Bravo: Banned; +965|5625|Cleveland, Ohio

Uzique wrote:
i don't know why he's letting it go this far.

really? you really dont know?

2011-06-18 07:05:19

#136

Hurricane2k9: Pendulous Sweaty Balls; +1,538|6090|College Park, MD

any way Camm if you do get taken to court I hope you win and that these __ggers (people who annoy you) have to pay all your legal fees. they sound like a bunch of fucking cunts.

this is why nobody likes lawyers.

2011-06-18 07:09:15

#137

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6858

camm will lose, flat, without a doubt. he didn't even email them before leaving a negative comment, and it's all so petty.

it'll just come down to who can afford the better lawyer... any bets on who that will be?

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2011-06-18 07:09:23

#138

Aries_37: arrivederci frog; +368|6963|London

leaving feedback without communicating is also pretty gay though

i wonder if theres a way for both sides to lose

2011-06-18 07:09:26

#139

13/f/taiwan: Member; +940|6087

cam these guys are all the way in canada. i doubt they're going to spend thousands of dollars in legal fees over one negative comment.

2011-06-18 07:10:13

#140

Jaekus: I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose; +957|5566|Sydney

I reckon they're bluffing tbh. Or they're insane.

2011-06-18 07:14:08

#141

Aries_37: arrivederci frog; +368|6963|London

Or they're just douches who realise they have just about enough weight to bully around people like camm.

2011-06-18 07:15:06

#142

13/f/taiwan: Member; +940|6087

here is the thing, they could just send him the cable and refund his money back. that way he revises his comment. win-win for both sides. why would they pay a lawyer and go to court over it instead? it's just not plausible.

2011-06-18 07:17:03

#143

11 Bravo: Banned; +965|5625|Cleveland, Ohio

13/f/taiwan wrote:
here is the thing, they could just send him the cable and refund his money back. that way he revises his comment. win-win for both sides. why would they pay a lawyer and go to court over it instead? it's just not plausible.

companies have lawyers on retainers. they are just using what they pay for.

2011-06-18 07:19:25

#144

Camm: Feeding the Cats.; +761|5356|Dundee, Scotland.

Dear ibanez2606,

Afternoon,

You freely admitted in email you had the goods shipped to an address you no longer live at.

Therefore factually, its a lie and thus libel.

This is our final communication, its all being forwarded to our solicitors as of 30 second ago.

Regards

for a fatty you're a serious intellectual lightweight.

2011-06-18 07:24:02

#145

Spamtheban: Undsiputed BF2s FIFA champion of all time; +132|5230|Stoke

didnt finray say they have received nothing anyway?

2011-06-18 07:24:13

#146

Camm: Feeding the Cats.; +761|5356|Dundee, Scotland.

Spamtheban wrote:
didnt finray say they have received nothing anyway?

yep

for a fatty you're a serious intellectual lightweight.

2011-06-18 07:25:06

#147

11 Bravo: Banned; +965|5625|Cleveland, Ohio

Spamtheban wrote:
didnt finray say they have received nothing anyway?

finray isnt the one who entered into the agreement. it doesnt matter. the more camm responds, the more he loses.

2011-06-18 07:25:44

#148

Camm: Feeding the Cats.; +761|5356|Dundee, Scotland.

11 Bravo wrote:
Spamtheban wrote:
didnt finray say they have received nothing anyway?
finray isnt the one who entered into the agreement. it doesnt matter. the more camm responds, the more he loses.

i can see them really pursuing this and taking me to court...

not.

Last edited by Camm (2011-06-18 07:25:56)

for a fatty you're a serious intellectual lightweight.

2011-06-18 07:26:33

#149

11 Bravo: Banned; +965|5625|Cleveland, Ohio

Camm wrote:
11 Bravo wrote:
Spamtheban wrote:
didnt finray say they have received nothing anyway?
finray isnt the one who entered into the agreement. it doesnt matter. the more camm responds, the more he loses.
i can see them really pursuing this and taking me to court...

not.

didnt say they will. you would however lose. no question.

2011-06-18 07:26:50

#150

Camm: Feeding the Cats.; +761|5356|Dundee, Scotland.

11 Bravo wrote:
Camm wrote:
11 Bravo wrote:

finray isnt the one who entered into the agreement. it doesnt matter. the more camm responds, the more he loses.
i can see them really pursuing this and taking me to court...

not.
didnt say they will. you would however lose. no question.

How would I lose?

for a fatty you're a serious intellectual lightweight.

BF2S Forums I'm getting taken to court over negative feedback.

ghettoperson wrote:

rdx-fx wrote:

Camm wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

rdx-fx wrote:

RDMC wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Camm wrote:

RDMC wrote:

Uzique wrote:

13/f/taiwan wrote:

Spamtheban wrote:

Spamtheban wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

Spamtheban wrote:

Camm wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

Spamtheban wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

Camm wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

Board footer