#1
|
|||
|
|||
WaveCel lawsuit...
Sure enough soon as I buy a new lid and it shows up, I see this as a recommended news article...
https://www.bicycleretailer.com/indu...are-misleading Ah well such is life. The lid has been acting somewhat as an anti-tiger rock for me anyway; it's been over 20 years since I really had a truly massive wipeout on a bike and that one, I was not wearing a helmet (did anyone back then?) |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
WaveCel lawsuit...
On Saturday, January 9, 2021 at 10:50:32 AM UTC-8, N8N wrote:
Sure enough soon as I buy a new lid and it shows up, I see this as a recommended news article... https://www.bicycleretailer.com/indu...are-misleading Ah well such is life. The lid has been acting somewhat as an anti-tiger rock for me anyway; it's been over 20 years since I really had a truly massive wipeout on a bike and that one, I was not wearing a helmet (did anyone back then?) And it has nothing to do with the actual safety of the helmet, viz., how it has behaved in the field. No one is claiming that it caused injuries or didn't protect against head-strikes that didn't occur. In fact, it is an 18 page complaint with the usual long, whining wind-up, class allegations and then three common-law claims: Negligent Misrepresentation 127. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs. 128. Defendant had a duty to truthfully represent the Product, which it breached. 129. This duty is based on defendant’s position, holding itself out as having special knowledge and experience in the sale of the product type. 130. The representations took advantage of consumers’ cognitive shortcuts made at the point-of-sale and their trust in defendant, a well-known and respected brand or entity in this sector. 131. Plaintiff and class members reasonably and justifiably relied on these negligent misrepresentations and omissions, which served to induce and did induce, the purchase of the Product. 132. Plaintiff and class members would not have purchased the Product or paid as much if the true facts had been known, suffering damages. Fraud 133. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs. 134. Defendant misrepresented the attributes and qualities of the Product. 135. Defendant’s fraudulent intent is evinced by its failure to accurately disclose the issues described herein, when it knew not doing so would mislead consumers. 136. Plaintiff and class members would not have purchased the Product or paid as much if the true facts had been known, suffering damages. Unjust Enrichment 137. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs. 138. Defendant obtained benefits and monies because the Product was not as represented and expected, to the detriment and impoverishment of plaintiff and class members, who seek restitution and disgorgement of inequitably obtained profits. Amazingly, there are no state unlawful trade practices or FTC claims. Looks really weak, and I can't imagine how they would certify a four-state CAFA class action, particularly in a fraud case. -- Jay Beattie. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
WaveCel lawsuit...
On Saturday, January 9, 2021 at 10:50:32 AM UTC-8, N8N wrote:
Sure enough soon as I buy a new lid and it shows up, I see this as a recommended news article... https://www.bicycleretailer.com/indu...are-misleading Ah well such is life. The lid has been acting somewhat as an anti-tiger rock for me anyway; it's been over 20 years since I really had a truly massive wipeout on a bike and that one, I was not wearing a helmet (did anyone back then?) I am not aware that their advertising is misleading. I think that their claims may be overblown but the REAL dangers of a bike crash where your head strikes is NOT a cracked or broken skull as the foam helmets are supposedly designed to ameliorate but a concussion which is when the brain is torn loose from its moorings and smashed against the contact side of the skull. If a wave cell helmet offers ANY protection from these sorts of injuries it has achieve what foam helmets do not do whatsoever. I have a wave cell helmet and I have struck my head a number of times and never had the slightest difficulty and I am especially attentive for those things since I had a severe concussion. Also, the wave cell helmet appears to recover to full effectiveness after a head strike. I give my full recommendation to the wavecell and dollars to donuts this "class action suit" is from foam cell helmet makers of the International helmet approval body that Trek has bypassed. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
WaveCel lawsuit...
On Saturday, January 9, 2021 at 11:33:19 AM UTC-8, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, January 9, 2021 at 10:50:32 AM UTC-8, N8N wrote: Sure enough soon as I buy a new lid and it shows up, I see this as a recommended news article... https://www.bicycleretailer.com/indu...are-misleading Ah well such is life. The lid has been acting somewhat as an anti-tiger rock for me anyway; it's been over 20 years since I really had a truly massive wipeout on a bike and that one, I was not wearing a helmet (did anyone back then?) And it has nothing to do with the actual safety of the helmet, viz., how it has behaved in the field. No one is claiming that it caused injuries or didn't protect against head-strikes that didn't occur. In fact, it is an 18 page complaint with the usual long, whining wind-up, class allegations and then three common-law claims: Negligent Misrepresentation 127. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs. 128. Defendant had a duty to truthfully represent the Product, which it breached. 129. This duty is based on defendant’s position, holding itself out as having special knowledge and experience in the sale of the product type. 130. The representations took advantage of consumers’ cognitive shortcuts made at the point-of-sale and their trust in defendant, a well-known and respected brand or entity in this sector. 131. Plaintiff and class members reasonably and justifiably relied on these negligent misrepresentations and omissions, which served to induce and did induce, the purchase of the Product. 132. Plaintiff and class members would not have purchased the Product or paid as much if the true facts had been known, suffering damages. Fraud 133. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs. 134. Defendant misrepresented the attributes and qualities of the Product.. 135. Defendant’s fraudulent intent is evinced by its failure to accurately disclose the issues described herein, when it knew not doing so would mislead consumers. 136. Plaintiff and class members would not have purchased the Product or paid as much if the true facts had been known, suffering damages. Unjust Enrichment 137. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs. 138. Defendant obtained benefits and monies because the Product was not as represented and expected, to the detriment and impoverishment of plaintiff and class members, who seek restitution and disgorgement of inequitably obtained profits. Amazingly, there are no state unlawful trade practices or FTC claims. Looks really weak, and I can't imagine how they would certify a four-state CAFA class action, particularly in a fraud case. Thanks for a legal opinion on this Jay. Now back to insulting you. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
WaveCel lawsuit...
On Saturday, January 9, 2021 at 9:33:57 PM UTC, wrote:
.. Thanks for a legal opinion on this Jay. Now back to insulting you. .. See, Rideblot, Jay's TROLLING Tom! This is intolerable! It can't be allowed to continue! What are you doing to stop it?! |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
WaveCel lawsuit...
On Saturday, January 9, 2021 at 4:56:27 PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
On Saturday, January 9, 2021 at 9:33:57 PM UTC, wrote: . Thanks for a legal opinion on this Jay. Now back to insulting you. . See, Rideblot, Jay's TROLLING Tom! This is intolerable! It can't be allowed to continue! What are you doing to stop it?! He intends to tell everyone that he has me blocked all the while answering my postings. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
WaveCel lawsuit...
On Sunday, January 10, 2021 at 1:29:59 AM UTC, wrote:
On Saturday, January 9, 2021 at 4:56:27 PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote: On Saturday, January 9, 2021 at 9:33:57 PM UTC, wrote: . Thanks for a legal opinion on this Jay. Now back to insulting you. . See, Rideblot, Jay's TROLLING Tom! This is intolerable! It can't be allowed to continue! What are you doing to stop it?! He intends to tell everyone that he has me blocked all the while answering my postings. .. Just like those permanent losers, Rideablot, Slow Johnnie, Scharfie and that Polack, whatsisname, the one who claims he was a professor... Now, if you can only get Newsie -- the thief Peter Howard under whatever name he has now -- to pretend he doesn't read your posts, you'll have a full house of Jokers. -- AJ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Peloton lawsuit update | AMuzi | Techniques | 1 | May 2nd 19 07:57 PM |
Ridiculous Lawsuit | Tom Sherman °_°[_2_] | Techniques | 29 | November 26th 10 03:37 AM |
Wally World lawsuit | pauly | Mountain Biking | 0 | December 4th 05 11:52 PM |
LeMond wins lawsuit | [email protected] | Racing | 7 | February 5th 05 07:50 PM |
LeMond wins lawsuit | [email protected] | Racing | 1 | February 5th 05 06:45 PM |