Slashdot Mirror


How To Take a Big Vendor To Small Claims and Win

snydeq writes "Gripe Line's Christina Tynan-Wood offers good news for those harboring grievances about faulty software or unfair licensing practices: it is in fact possible to take a big vendor to small claims court and win. But, as one woman's fight against Adobe demonstrates, detailed evidence and a deep understanding of the laws in question are essential to obtaining justice against big vendor lawyers. 'Evidence is the key factor,' explains one legal expert. 'Often the evidence people present does not show what they think it does. And they fail to make themselves aware of the rules of evidence so they can introduce any evidence they do have in court. These companies will have attorneys and those attorneys will use the rules of civil procedure to take advantage of your lack of knowledge.' Moreover, they will spare little expense no matter the magnitude of claims brought against them. 'The lawyer for Adobe tried an "end-user is stupid" argument,' explains the woman who took on Adobe over a software license she never had the privilege of agreeing to. 'But he gave that up when he learned I wasn't a lame-brain home computer user. I have a software engineering background and worked for Sun Microsystems and Fidelity Investments tech group.'"

5 of 171 comments (clear)

  1. Having been in a similar situation before... by CaptainNerdCave · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It is in your best interest to have all/most of the evidence of your victimization in your control. Think of it as the company pleading the fifth amendment regarding the correspondence that proves their fault.

    Just like it's usually a waste of money to pay UPS or USPS to insure your package against their negligence.

    1. Re:Having been in a similar situation before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      No, they do not have to explain why they are taking the fifth. As you say, that would defeat the purpose.

      (unfortunately speaking from experience)

      There have even been instances of people taking the fifth even though they *didn't* commit a criminal offense -- the point is that refusal to testify can't be used against you because they have no proof you did anything wrong. Personally, I now always refuse to talk to police, and take the fifth unless there's an extremely good reason. Another issue is that if you testify that you didn't do the thing in question, they might be able to use that as an admission of guilt of a totally unrelated charge. I don't know all the laws, how the heck am I supposed to know whether or not I'm admitting to some bullshit law from the 1840s that some DA wants to get me on because they're pissed that I didn't actually do anything wrong.

  2. Tribunal by WillKemp · · Score: 3, Interesting

    We're lucky here in Australia - or at least in the states that i know about - because we have small claims (or equivalent) tribunals. The rules of evidence don't apply and the parties aren't necessarily allowed representation by a lawyer (particularly if the other party can argue convincingly that it would disadvantage them - which shouldn't be too hard).

    In all courts, however, the judge (or equivalent) has an obligation to assist anyone who's representing themselves.

  3. They WILL spare expense.... by Itninja · · Score: 3, Interesting
    TFA makes it sound as though a corp will send a $400/hr legal team across the country for a $250 claim:

    Moreover, they will spare little expense no matter the magnitude of claims brought against them...

    They won't. I had a dispute with Dell a few years back over a part they insisted I purchased (I hadn't). Spent nearly a year writing letters, insisting I did not purchase the item. Eventually they sent me to collections. I had had enough and filed a SCC action. Within three weeks the charges were reversed, the collection agency was called off, and they sent me a check to cover 'credit repair costs'. No lawyers, no courtroom appearances, no nothing...

    --
    I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
  4. Re:You have better odds in Small Claims Court by socz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Well, lets put it this way. The technicalities of the law in my state really says I have no chance what-so-ever of winning IF the attorney would have done more than the MINIMUM. Which is really what is needed in THIS case.

    The problem was, that I have so much overwhelming evidence to prove what I am claiming, that there is 1 tiny sub-section that allows my case to go forward. BUT, even THAT could have been blocked, had the attorney sufficiently brought forward enough arguments and it's proof (if true).

    That coupled with the defendant's blatant denial (perjury) of:

    n) That's not me in the video (clearly shows them). n) That's not my voice in the... (voice mail, recording device, video, etc...) n) That's not my phone, I don't even own a phone... n) I don't even know this person... (lol wtf right?)

    Believe me, there's no conspiring here. It just happens to be that I prepared for this case because I already knew there was trouble ahead (for more than a year). That's why, relatively few people would be able to do what I'm doing because I have so much "evidence" on my side. That's also why we have (my family, friends, others told about my case) come to those conclusions. Because as more than a few (and attorney's as well) have said, "I had no case." And under normal circumstances I wouldn't have a case, but I am VERY well prepared.

    Finally, please believe me, I'm not trying to come across as boasting but rather humble and willing to share this 'nightmare' (experience) with others so they can see it's NOT impossible to do what's "right." But also believe me, I am very proud of my accomplishments thus far. Most can't believe I've been able to get this far without an attorney's help in this type of case. As pointed out, my mistakes have been trying to surprise the attorney with evidence as they did to me (which turns out you can't do! It's not like it is on TV!!). But you learn and move on. Not being able to file other evidence because it's too much (75 pages). Having been told MANY times by the judge "you can't do this/that, you needed to give notice etc.

    So we'll find out how it goes. Most have told me that the appellate court is to review the technicalities of the court. Such as if there was an error in procedure. And that no new arguments can be presented, only that in record and in filings. But what it has done for me is the ability to explain my case in detail using laws and similar cases. This is something I wasn't able to do in court because of: nervousness, inexperience, everything just flying at me so fast, objections left and right which distracted me from my arguments etc. So now, in my brief I've been able to put it all together in order in a well formed argument, as I had originally intended to do.

    And to put out of doubt that we have ANY relation with each other, it seems the attorney was especially "mean" (dirty) during my deposition being that once again, I did it all myself. I am sure she was asking things and coming to conclusions that she couldn't legally do, but because I don't know the laws I couldn't object. Though she kept threatening me for not answering everything she asked such as where I work, company name, location, and hours that have NO RELEVANCE to my case.

    So no, the appellant's attorney isn't helping me out but almost any other "real" attorney in this state should have been able to have slam dunked this case... or at least they would have thought it was that easy not knowing what kind of person I am and what "evidence" I have (overwhelming). I also wouldn't have 1/10th of the stress if they were helping me out. (And less medical bills because of it too!)

    --
    My abilities are only limited by my imagination