181–190 of 283 posts
Trader Joes doesn't have a goddamn peg-leg to stand on in this dispute. If Trader Joes had made any indication whatsoever they were seeking to satisfy the clearly substantial demand for their products in Vancouver I might better be able to see their side of the story, but they have done absolutely nothing to expand into what would be ludicrously lucrative market. I know multiple people who have sent bloody hand-writt…
I don't understand with what right trader Joe's can prohibit somebody from reselling their products. If he clearly states where he bought them from, and that he is not affiliated, and doesn't misuse their trademarks (impersonate them), it should be absolutely legal. A side remark, people often say how great the US / north America is for entrepreneurs, compared to (continental) Europe where there is a lot of red tape…
More generally, TJs has every right to sell to people on specific terms. That's just freedom of contract.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A lot of people are using the "I bought chips at Costco and resold them at a concession stand example". This is at least a little different. Say you owned Captainmuon Grocery and only sold private label Captainmuon Chips. Although demand is so high you could distribute your Chips to other groceries and retailers, you see greater value in driving traffic to your store through the exclusive distribution. Don't you have…
Nope. You don't have any of those legal rights. The courts agreed, but Trader Joes had bigger pockets and was able to kill Pirate Joes with just legal fees alone. They didn't have to win, they just had to keep him in court until he was broke. This is a pretty common tactic when big corporations are in lawsuits with individuals. Or in the case of healthcare suits they just wait until the plaintiff is dead of whatever…
I am not a lawyer, so I don't know that I am qualified to comment on the legal issues. I can say that this does make me upset at Trader Joe's, and I will be considering where else I can spend my money. They could have worked with this guy, eventually set up a Trader Joe's in Canada, and then offered to let this guy run it. That would have been better for their brand, in my view. I care about what companies do. Costco…
I am not a lawyer, so I don't know that I am qualified to comment on the legal issues. I can say that this does make me upset at Trader Joe's, and I will be considering where else I can spend my money. They could have worked with this guy, eventually set up a Trader Joe's in Canada, and then offered to let this guy run it. That would have been better for their brand, in my view. I care about what companies do. Costco…
I totally get what you're saying, but if you're a business about to open in a new country, and you have to choose a manager for your first location there, would you pick some random businessperson or would you pick a guy you've banned from shopping in your store who's been sneaking into your Seattle stores in a wig and fake glasses in order to sell in Vancouver with inflated prices? Because I'd totally pick the rando…
I don't understand with what right trader Joe's can prohibit somebody from reselling their products. If he clearly states where he bought them from, and that he is not affiliated, and doesn't misuse their trademarks (impersonate them), it should be absolutely legal. A side remark, people often say how great the US / north America is for entrepreneurs, compared to (continental) Europe where there is a lot of red tape…
A lot of people are using the "I bought chips at Costco and resold them at a concession stand example". This is at least a little different. Say you owned Captainmuon Grocery and only sold private label Captainmuon Chips. Although demand is so high you could distribute your Chips to other groceries and retailers, you see greater value in driving traffic to your store through the exclusive distribution. Don't you have…
No, you shouldn't have the right to do that. I bought a product, I can sell it if I want to.
I am not a lawyer, so I don't know that I am qualified to comment on the legal issues. I can say that this does make me upset at Trader Joe's, and I will be considering where else I can spend my money. They could have worked with this guy, eventually set up a Trader Joe's in Canada, and then offered to let this guy run it. That would have been better for their brand, in my view. I care about what companies do. Costco…
I totally get what you're saying, but if you're a business about to open in a new country, and you have to choose a manager for your first location there, would you pick some random businessperson or would you pick a guy you've banned from shopping in your store who's been sneaking into your Seattle stores in a wig and fake glasses in order to sell in Vancouver with inflated prices? Because I'd totally pick the rando…
Good luck finding someone more motivated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I totally get what you're saying, but if you're a business about to open in a new country, and you have to choose a manager for your first location there, would you pick some random businessperson or would you pick a guy you've banned from shopping in your store who's been sneaking into your Seattle stores in a wig and fake glasses in order to sell in Vancouver with inflated prices? Because I'd totally pick the rando…
I'd totally pick the person who has already shown extreme enthusiasm for my products.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It normalizes the behavior as acceptable. In reality, the aphorism is based on a ridiculous premise that nobody in their right mind should accept; that money is the only thing responsible for dictating what is acceptable behavior.
Uh, that's the entire premise behind the free market. Money decides who is right and who is wrong. The Invisible Hand doesn't have morals.
What kind of world would it be if we didn't even have rules about things like how much lead is acceptable for a person to consume, or what constitutes 'acutely toxic,' or what you are and aren't allowed to put in food?
"Well," the free market idealist replies, "it would be fine. Nobody would consume things with a lot of lead over a competitor without lead. Nobody would use unlabeled toxic things after the first few incidents. Nobody would eat or drink poison over a nutritious competitor."
And that malicious failure to acknowledge that people are not omniscient or in possession of perfect information about The Market on a second-to-second basis is what leads to us accepting those sorts of stupid arguments.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is called the Grey Market. It isn't a legal designation. The first sale doctrine still applies to bulk purchases. If a seller wants to, they can refuse to sell to anyone that they think will latter resell their product. You can go into a store right now, buy something at full retail price, and list it on eBay. I doubt you would make any money, unless, like Pirate Joe's, you are selling to a market that is unable t…
No, First Sale Doctrine is something else. This guy was not selling copies. There's something in the law pertinent to the fact that this guy bought at a retail location, which causes TJ's loss on their commercial real estate which presumably they invest in to reach the consumer public with quantities said consuming public would typically purchase. Stores can put limits on units per customer of course, but there's rec…
I thought people do this all the time, successfully defending themselves in court when necessary. Can you show me statute or a current judicial decision that says otherwise?
What happened here, is that Pirate Joe's didn't have enough money to pay their lawyers, so they gave up and settled with Trader Joe's.