RE: [Leica] Warranty survey.

["Austin Franklin" <darkroom@ix.netcom.com>]

> At 04:03 PM 3/4/02 -0500, Austin Franklin wrote:
> >> But your basic statement is a gross over-characterization of
> the current
> >> state of the law.
> >
> >Well, Marc, please explain why YOU BELIEVE it is a GROSS
> >over-characterization?  I have done this very thing a few times and have
> >won, and had no problem collecting, or enforcing collection.
>
> Austin
>
> You earlier stated:
>
> "Well, I know I CAN win.  In MA, I can sue any company in the US here
> locally.  No, I do NOT have to go to that state to sue them.  We
> have a long
> arm statute that is invoked via what is called a "93A" demand letter."
>
> You made a flat statement that the Massachussetts long-arm statute allowed
> ANY corporation to be hauled into a Massachussetts state court upon
> complying with the requirements of that act.

I do not know if the business has to be a corporation, or just a business,
but I have not had any problem with that being an issue.  An individual is a
different story, and has different requirements, but it too, can be done.
It also has to be a company that did business IN this state, obviously...I
am not talking about my being in another state, and buying something IN that
state...

> Your statement would have been fine if qualified a bit -- something along
> the lines of, "In Massachussetts, I can sue any US company REGULARLY
> CONDUCTING BUSINESS HERE and can do so in a Massachussetts court."

Now what I said "would have been fine if qualified a BIT"....as opposed to
"GROSSLY over-characteris[ed]"...but I'm hardly going to outline the entire
MA legal system on this list (which I could not do anyway)...so yes, some
things said MAY need clarification...I'll include a disclaimer in everything
I say from now on ;-)

Austin

DISCLAIMER: No animals were spoken to in harsh tones during the preparation
of this email.

P.S.  You spelled Massachusetts wrong ;-)


- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html