| WritersBeware |
|
Feb 4, 11, 06:19PM
| #121 |
Joined: Apr 19, 07
Threads: 152
Posts: 8,679
|
EW_writer: Now that I have established using the text from the ruling that YOU PROVIDED that you are in fact, 100% WRONG.
WRONG, moron. Can you not comprehend simple English? I quoted just a few lines from the Ruling, and NOTHING from the Opinion. YOU claim that I am wrong; therefore, the burden of proof is on YOU. Why don't you attack the documents like you would a baloney sandwich?
Good luck, c*nt.
|
|
| EW_writer |
|
Edited by: EW_writer Feb 4, 11, 08:23PM
| #122 |
Joined: Jul 2, 07
Threads: 27
Posts: 2,239
|
WritersBeware: WRONG, moron. Can you not comprehend simple English? I quoted just a few lines from the Ruling, and NOTHING from the Opinion. YOU claim that I am wrong; therefore, the burden of proof is on YOU.
Proof...
EW_writer: Axact's misrepresentations and misleading warranties regarding the quality and originality of its products and services WILL unquestionably victimize the average consumer, and constitute an unconscionable commercial practice of deception, fraud, and unlawful conduct in connection with the sale of goods and the performance of services sought by consumers.
Explanation:
Did the ruling say that the "misrepresentations and misleading warranties" HAVE mislead clients? No. The word is "WILL." The misrepresentations and misleading warranties WILL unquestionably victimize the average consumer. This is why Axact was found guilt which is consistent with the Lanham Act. A company can be found guilty of violating it whether or not the company gained financially from a false advertisement. The critical matter is the POTENTIAL to deceive rather than actual deception. Providing this potential is already sufficient for at least an injunction.
Rebuttal?
None. You can't even bring yourself to post anything from the opinion to defend your retarded idea because YOU KNOW that there's ABSOLUTELY NOTHING there that you can use.
You're done. ^_^
|
|
| WritersBeware |
|
Feb 4, 11, 09:19PM
| #123 |
Joined: Apr 19, 07
Threads: 152
Posts: 8,679
|
EW_writer: YOU claim that I am wrong; therefore, the burden of proof is on YOU to read the Ruling and Opinion and then provide evidence that I am incorrect.
I will repeat that line over and over and over, slut.
|
|
| EW_writer |
|
Edited by: EW_writer Feb 4, 11, 09:49PM
| #124 |
Joined: Jul 2, 07
Threads: 27
Posts: 2,239
|
WritersBeware: I will repeat that line over and over and over, slut.
Hahaha! Because it's the only thing that's left for you to say. Don't you worry though, I don't need to repeat my statement after this post. It's so crystal clear that I'm VERY comfortable with this thread ending here. You can have your last say (I know that that's soooooooo important to you). ^_^ When readers see how much you've neglected answering a simple argument, they'll be able to tell quite unequivocally how RETARDED you and your argument are.
Here it is one last time (at least for this thread) Does actual proof of sale need to be provided to hold a company liable for false advertisement under the Lanham Act?
According to Judge Freda L. Wolfson, No, it does not.
Proof (quoted from actual ruling as provided by WritersBeware)
Axact's misrepresentations and misleading warranties regarding the quality and originality of its products and services WILL unquestionably victimize the average consumer, and constitute an unconscionable commercial practice of deception, fraud, and unlawful conduct in connection with the sale of goods and the performance of services sought by consumers.
Did the ruling say that the "misrepresentations and misleading warranties" HAVE mislead clients? No. The word is "WILL." The misrepresentations and misleading warranties WILL unquestionably victimize the average consumer. This is why Axact was found guilt which is consistent with the Lanham Act. A company can be found guilty of violating it whether or not the company gained financially from a false advertisement. The critical matter is the POTENTIAL to deceive rather than actual deception. Providing this potential is already sufficient for at least an injunction.
And now.. WB's last post on this thread. She will claim that I have the burden of proof, where in fact I have provided the proof above already (thanks to her). She will not make any reasonable rebuttals, nor will she quote anything from the "opinion" that she is so fervently brandishing. Why? Because there is simply nothing left for her to say except a few obscenities. Poor... sad... retarded WritersBeware. Tsk tsk tsk.... the floor and that sweetly pathetic final word that you are so desperate to have are yours. :p
|
|
| WritersBeware |
|
Feb 4, 11, 11:10PM
| #125 |
Joined: Apr 19, 07
Threads: 152
Posts: 8,679
|
EW_writer: Hahaha! Because it's the only thing that's left for you to say.
Actually, no. It's because I'm tired of playing your immature game. Make believe that you're an adult and read the documents. Until then, you're wasting my time.
|
|
