Nrsolis

Delete my account.

Are you a lawyer? My parents were married.

Now...if we can get back to your points.

Cite sources for your assertions. You say there is plenty of NY case law then cite a couple of examples. You say that small claims cases are more likely to end up in front of a judge. How do you know this? Are you taking into account the number of cases that are dismissed because the two parties reached an agreement before trial that resolved the issue?

If you're an expert on the law and you think I'm not then PUHLEEZE demonstrate something besides an ability to google counterexamples.

When you've been sued and had to sue people you quickly develop an appreciation for how the legal system REALLY works and how lawsuits are a tool for negotiation. I will tell you that I've sued a handful of people and none of those times did we actually go to trial. We settled because the cost of a trial would have far exceeded the disputed amount.

The one time I was sued in small claims, I settled. I actually settled IN THE COURTROOM and informed the judge that he could dismiss the case.

Get some time on the pond, kid. Otherwise, go kick rocks.

California is weird.

On the east coast (NYC in particular), things are a bit more sane in some ways and a bit crazier in others.

Of course, this is all inside baseball. As a practical matter, it's HIGHLY LIKELY that this will never get before a judge. No corporation is going to send their CEO to court to argue a case and if they can't send a lawyer to small claims, they will just submit a motion to move the case to regular civil court because reasons.

Of course, if that happens, then they've already lost. It will be FAR more expensive to litigate in plain old civil court.

For the record, IANAL but I've hired and fired a bunch of them and done this dance a few times already on both sides of the coin. Bunch of lawyer friends too. One of them was just on TV doing a press conference for his client, a Navy SEAL.

YMMV.

What does Nolo say about corporations or LLCs? That's what we are talking about here.

Individual people have the option of hiring a lawyer in some states but most don't. Corporations on the other hand, because they are "legal" and not "natural" persons don't get that right. They must be represented by counsel. A corporation can't represent itself in court because it's not a "natural person". They MUST use a lawyer.

Yup. A "legal person" like a corporation in the USA must have legal counsel to represent them in court, even small claims.

Court sucks. Any lawyer will tell you that you don't want the judge making the decision for you. They'll buy you a new camera if they are smart and fix their process.

Otherwise they will spend a lot more on lawyers than they ever would making you whole.

And yes, some companies get sued ALL THE TIME.

Unless it's a corporation or other "legal person" and then they MUST have a lawyer (or principal in some states) from the company to answer the court.

When they have to hire a lawyer and you don't but you know the balance of facts are on your side, it's an advantage.

The goal is to get them to the table and choose a less painful resolution. Don't let them off the hook. SUE!

It's going to keep happening until someone takes them to court.

I hate to say it but unless you're bound by an arbitration agreement in the terms of service you should just file in small claims. Even still...file in small claims and make them fight to have the case sent to arbitration. Lawyers are expensive and you won't need one in small claims.

Sometimes the process is the punishment.

Sue first and sue often. Really.

You've already done most of the legwork on this. Now all you need to do is get this into small claims court.

Trust me: once KitSplit gets that notification from the court that they're being hauled into court and are going to need to hire a lawyer to defend themselves, you're gonna be working with a whole different level of people at Kitsplit. That's your best chance to get compensated.

SUE THE BASTARDS.

I disagree.

For one thing, this is an article written by a history professor who is pitching her book: " Cigarettes, Inc.: An Intimate History of Corporate Imperialism"

The term "corporate imperialism" is your first clue. I spent some more time perusing her other writing and I'm not impressed. She's got an agenda here and that's to take a specific example of corporate power run amok and extend it to other areas. THAT is what I was pushing back against.

There are a litany of other examples that would have served this subject better (oil, sugar, hell, even bananas) because the connection between production of a commodity item and the effect on the economy and society would be much clearer.

In this example, she's focusing on cigarettes as the central player. The problem is that cigarettes aren't a commodity; they're branded. You could easily make the case that Heinz Ketchup doesn't deserve their position as market leader because they control so much of the market that nobody else stands a chance. That kind of backing into a theory of history is what I'm talking about when we discuss survivorship bias. If there hadn't been a monopoly, she'd have nothing to write about. Nothing in the article serves to identify how to prevent a monopoly from forming in the current day nor does she cite any examples of markets where it's nearly impossible (despite their best efforts) for someone to achieve and maintain a monopoly because the pace of innovation constantly forces an evolution of the market.

So, to sum up, I think she's reaching. I don't find her account useful as a prescriptive when trying to understand if monopolies are bad (however they are formed) or if there are ways to prevent a monopoly from forming when a competitor has a product so good that nobody else can come close.

As a book of the history of cigarettes and jazz, sure, whatever.

We're splitting hairs here.

The original article used a straw-man to impugn capitalism. That's hardly fair. For every bad faith player there are a thousand farmers (all small businesses IMHO), restaurant owners, inventors, and others who start a business to serve the public with a good or service and are willing to risk their time and money to do it. Lots of those folks don't make it and lose their investment for a multitude of reasons. Sometimes it's because of bad management; sometimes the economy; sometimes illegal action by a competitor. Such is life.

In this discussion, we have to be careful of choosing our examples to suit our argument. The original article seems to be blissfully unaware of survivorship bias when she rails against capitalism.

Economics isn't a morality tale. It doesn't care who is "good" or "bad", just who is able to provide something the market needs at a price it's willing to pay.

I know this outrages a lot of people butI would argue that there is more hazard entrusting that determination to government (as the author seems to suggest as a solution) than letting consumers decide for themselves.

I used to use Uber. Now I use Lyft. That was a choice I made when I learned of their management culture. You might care; you might not: it's YOUR choice.

Capitalism isn't the best solution to our scarcity problems but nobody has come up with a better solution yet. Ideas are great but you can't eat ideas. You can't sleep inside of a conjecture.

Capitalism wins because it works in spite of the imperfections in implementation.

In the USA, you've got that choice.

Let's try and understand that this isn't a race to see who has it worse. My point is that an academic in the arts isn't likely to possess the understanding of entrepreneurship and its challenges any more than an entrepreneur is to understand the challenges of a career in academia.

The difference is that one isn't pointing at the other and trying to blame them for all of society's ills.

I'm not dismissing the hard work that goes into either. What I'm saying is that the risk profile isn't close to being comparable.

A young tenure-track professor isn't at risk of losing their degree if they fail to achieve tenure. It's also unlikely that they might owe thousands (or hundreds of thousands) to the IRS or state tax authorities for which they could very well be personally liable for. That's not a figurative example. I actually saw this happen with a small ISP.

I recall a news story about a congressman who left public service to try and run a business (something not technical) and he was dumbfounded by the practical affect of the laws that he helped pass and how unwieldy and challenging it is for an entrepreneur to actually succeed when faced with the never-ending cascade of regulations and approvals needed to actually open. The gist of the article is that he didn't appreciate the reality of business ownership until he tried it. Then he saw the light.

I would encourage any academic that thinks the only way to succeed in business is to cheat to give it a try themselves. Something as simple as an ice-cream shop can be a real eye-opener in terms of regulatory complexity, financial disclosure, and employment law.

I actually do know how hard it is to get tenure. My point still stands.

Very few academics declare bankruptcy when their businesses fail. Very few academics pour their life savings or retirement funds into their academic career only to walk away with less than nothing and owing money they might never be able to repay.

Comparative skills is one thing. Comparative risk is another.