Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/03/04
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Hi John, The only claim I made was as listed below. That I, as an individual, can (and have) successfully sued out of state companies, in my own state, by the use of the MA 93A demand letter. It was not in reference to a specific case. Austin > I just subscribed, and missed out on the claim Austin Franklin > writes about. > Can you send it? Thanks, John > > ---------- > >From: Marc James Small <msmall@infi.net> > >To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us > >Subject: RE: [Leica] Warranty survey. > >Date: Mon, Mar 4, 2002, 2:08 PM > > > > > At 01:07 PM 3/4/02 -0500, Austin Franklin wrote: > >> > >>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 might want to check out the Volkswagen and Grey Hound cases > in the US > > Supreme Court, Austin. If there are not "sufficient minimum contacts" > > between the forum state and the company, then you have to chase them to > > their home state. I do recognize that Leica has established > the "minimum > > sufficient contacts" with your Commonwealth to be sued there. > > > > But your basic statement is a gross over-characterization of the current > > state of the law. > > > > Marc - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html