|
|
Post by socal on Apr 9, 2008 19:13:04 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by GhostMod 5000 on Apr 9, 2008 19:36:28 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Apr 9, 2008 20:01:47 GMT -6
Nice find socal.
If I was the CEO of Wal-Mart, I would call the guy up and offer him $25,000,000 for the archives but that he only had one hour to take the offer. The purchase agreement would be a two-sentencer "Wal-Mart hereby purchases all right, title and interest in the archive from Joe Schmo for $25mm and Joe Schmo will deliver the archive (including all storage media on which any item of the archive is stored) to Wal-Mart immediately upon signing this agreement. Upon signing this agreement, Wal-Mart will wire the purchase price to Joe Schmo pursuant to the following instructions:"
Then, I'd be on the horn with a manager in bumblefuck Kansas and tell him to go park outside the dude's place. Dude would see that simple agreement and sign it and think he was getting $25mm. Then, I'd send the manager in ASAP to collect the archive.
Simultaneously, I'd get the wire rolling. Wire hits and dude thinks he is the fucking man. WRONG. Within seconds of the wire hitting I'd file a lawsuit in Arkansas alleging copyright infringement - as the movies should have belonged to Wal-Mart under the work made for hire doctrine and that the persons in the video did not consent to their likenesses being distributed, etc... I'd seek a restraining order precluding the guy from taking any of the wired cash out of the bank or distributing any copies of the archive he unlawfully obtained.
Maybe I wouldn't win on the lawsuit, but I would stop the guy from distributing the videos and make him realize he fucked with the wrong guys. His cash would be tied up for years in the court system and it would send a valuable lesson, don't fuck with Wal-Mart. Their pussyfooting around the issue right now makes me believe that they have lost the fire in their belly and will soon go the way of Woolworth and K-Mart. It's kind of a shame. The fact that I would take a harder line stance against a commie pinko extortionist photographer than Wal-Mart has me really worried about the state of American business.
|
|
|
|
Post by Justhawks17 on Apr 9, 2008 20:37:32 GMT -6
FUK WALMART!
|
|
|
|
Post by socal on Apr 10, 2008 4:14:02 GMT -6
If I was the CEO of Wal-Mart... I doubt the CEO of WM is all that interested... Besides, the pumps are primed for the next episode of "WalMart watch" after this mis-adventure: www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23906091/Summary- A WalMart employee was injured in a truck accident a few years back. She is permanently disabled - including no short term memory (Think the movie Memento or 50 first dates)... WalMart covered her expenses under their insurance. The trucking company at fault for the injury gave the woman about $1,000,000 --- netted to about $420,000 (after the f'ing attorneys got their cut). Then WalMart sues for the expenses they paid... roughly $470,000. In the meantime, the son of the injured lady is killed in Iraq - and due to her memory problem, she has to be retold everyday that her son died in Iraq. The money left is down to less than $300,000. The husband divorced the wife because she can get a bit more assistance from Medicaid if she's single, and the husband now has cancer himself. WalMart dropped their lawsuit after the press latched onto the story... |
|
|
|
Post by Gumbyhawk on Apr 10, 2008 7:08:41 GMT -6
Nice find socal. If I was the CEO of Wal-Mart, I would call the guy up and offer him $25,000,000 for the archives but that he only had one hour to take the offer. The purchase agreement would be a two-sentencer "Wal-Mart hereby purchases all right, title and interest in the archive from Joe Schmo for $25mm and Joe Schmo will deliver the archive (including all storage media on which any item of the archive is stored) to Wal-Mart immediately upon signing this agreement. Upon signing this agreement, Wal-Mart will wire the purchase price to Joe Schmo pursuant to the following instructions:" Then, I'd be on the horn with a manager in bumblefuck Kansas and tell him to go park outside the dude's place. Dude would see that simple agreement and sign it and think he was getting $25mm. Then, I'd send the manager in ASAP to collect the archive. Simultaneously, I'd get the wire rolling. Wire hits and dude thinks he is the fucking man. WRONG. Within seconds of the wire hitting I'd file a lawsuit in Arkansas alleging copyright infringement - as the movies should have belonged to Wal-Mart under the work made for hire doctrine and that the persons in the video did not consent to their likenesses being distributed, etc... I'd seek a restraining order precluding the guy from taking any of the wired cash out of the bank or distributing any copies of the archive he unlawfully obtained. Maybe I wouldn't win on the lawsuit, but I would stop the guy from distributing the videos and make him realize he fucked with the wrong guys. His cash would be tied up for years in the court system and it would send a valuable lesson, don't f**k with Wal-Mart. Their pussyfooting around the issue right now makes me believe that they have lost the fire in their belly and will soon go the way of Woolworth and K-Mart. It's kind of a shame. The fact that I would take a harder line stance against a commie pinko extortionist photographer than Wal-Mart has me really worried about the state of American business. Thank you, BTR for once again showing everyone while lawyers suck ass and are a scourge on society!  |
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Apr 10, 2008 7:13:09 GMT -6
If I was the CEO of Wal-Mart... I doubt the CEO of WM is all that interested... Besides, the pumps are primed for the next episode of "WalMart watch" after this mis-adventure: www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23906091/Summary- A WalMart employee was injured in a truck accident a few years back. She is permanently disabled - including no short term memory (Think the movie Memento or 50 first dates)... WalMart covered her expenses under their insurance. The trucking company at fault for the injury gave the woman about $1,000,000 --- netted to about $420,000 (after the f'ing attorneys got their cut). Then WalMart sues for the expenses they paid... roughly $470,000. In the meantime, the son of the injured lady is killed in Iraq - and due to her memory problem, she has to be retold everyday that her son died in Iraq. The money left is down to less than $300,000. The husband divorced the wife because she can get a bit more assistance from Medicaid if she's single, and the husband now has cancer himself. WalMart dropped their lawsuit after the press latched onto the story... The CEO will be interested when that shit gets admitted in one of those suits against the company. Wal-Mart has to be the most sued company in the country -- I would not trust the courts in liberal states like CA to properly exclude evidence that is not probative to the case at hand when the defendant is Wal-Mart. You sure those lawyers got a fee north of 50%? Or did you change the numbers a little bit? I think one insurer will go after another insurer or insured for losses they incurred that were coverred by someone else's insurance. Even though you libs hate Wal-Mart, even you can't give an equitable reason as to why Wal-Mart should have to go out of pocket 400k for damages caused by an insured third party's tort. |
|
|
|
Post by Gumbyhawk on Apr 10, 2008 10:14:38 GMT -6
I doubt the CEO of WM is all that interested... Besides, the pumps are primed for the next episode of "WalMart watch" after this mis-adventure: www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23906091/Summary- A WalMart employee was injured in a truck accident a few years back. She is permanently disabled - including no short term memory (Think the movie Memento or 50 first dates)... WalMart covered her expenses under their insurance. The trucking company at fault for the injury gave the woman about $1,000,000 --- netted to about $420,000 (after the f'ing attorneys got their cut). Then WalMart sues for the expenses they paid... roughly $470,000. In the meantime, the son of the injured lady is killed in Iraq - and due to her memory problem, she has to be retold everyday that her son died in Iraq. The money left is down to less than $300,000. The husband divorced the wife because she can get a bit more assistance from Medicaid if she's single, and the husband now has cancer himself. WalMart dropped their lawsuit after the press latched onto the story... The CEO will be interested when that shit gets admitted in one of those suits against the company. Wal-Mart has to be the most sued company in the country -- I would not trust the courts in liberal states like CA to properly exclude evidence that is not probative to the case at hand when the defendant is Wal-Mart. You sure those lawyers got a fee north of 50%? Or did you change the numbers a little bit? I think one insurer will go after another insurer or insured for losses they incurred that were coverred by someone else's insurance. Even though you libs hate Wal-Mart, even you can't give an equitable reason as to why Wal-Mart should have to go out of pocket 400k for damages caused by an insured third party's tort. Oh, I get it! Your pro-Walmart replies are kinda like when you are talking up Ken Keefe!! Ha, ha, ha!!! You're so funny, Ralph!!  |
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Apr 10, 2008 11:17:20 GMT -6
Unlike Ken O'Kweefe, Wal-Mart does actually provide a valuable service to our economy.
As a person who has health insurance through a private insurer and not the government like the poors on the board (i.e. GumbyHawk), I like the idea of the insurance company going after tortfeasors who cause my insurance carrier to pay for damages caused by someone else.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gumbyhawk on Apr 10, 2008 11:26:16 GMT -6
Unlike Ken O'Kweefe, Wal-Mart does actually provide a valuable service to our economy. As a person who has health insurance through a private insurer and not the government like the poors on the board (i.e. GumbyHawk), I like the idea of the insurance company going after tortfeasors who cause my insurance carrier to pay for damages caused by someone else. WOW!! You actually got one right, BTR! My health coverage IS technically through the "Gov'mint" as I am on the wife's healthcare as she is a State employee. Kudos to you, my man! Other than that, your reply just shows that you are a true lawyer... i.e. a cold-hearted, un-caring shell of a human being. To even joke that Walmart should get some sympathy in this case is pretty low. But from you, I guess as much should be expected. |
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Apr 10, 2008 11:37:53 GMT -6
Wal-Mart backed down. They changed their policy. They ended up doing the "right" thing in the end. It is a big institution with many layers of bureaucracy. They had a policy of always seeking subrogration and they have changed it, but in the vast majority of cases like this, they should absolutely seek subrogation.
Wal-Mart had a damn court order giving them the money. If I had a court order for $400k to recover a $400K expense that I incurred, I'd execute on it. It'd be foolish for me not to.
Don't worry, I'm sure some lib somewhere is going to make it illegal for health insurers to seek subrogation and add another few percent to the cost of health insurance so more people can't afford it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gumbyhawk on Apr 10, 2008 11:50:59 GMT -6
Wal-Mart backed down. They changed their policy. They ended up doing the "right" thing in the end. It is a big institution with many layers of bureaucracy. They had a policy of always seeking subrogration and they have changed it, but in the vast majority of cases like this, they should absolutely seek subrogation. Wal-Mart had a damn court order giving them the money. If I had a court order for $400k to recover a $400K expense that I incurred, I'd execute on it. It'd be foolish for me not to. Don't worry, I'm sure some lib somewhere is going to make it illegal for health insurers to seek subrogation and add another few percent to the cost of health insurance so more people can't afford it. Walmart only backed down after being exposed for the slime ball corporation that it is. It not for this exposure, they would still be after this $. There is a difference between "having the right to do something" and "doing the right thing". But of course, Walmart has yet to learn that. |
|
|
|
Post by NotMyKid on Apr 10, 2008 12:15:33 GMT -6
Wal-Mart backed down. They changed their policy. They ended up doing the "right" thing in the end. It is a big institution with many layers of bureaucracy. They had a policy of always seeking subrogration and they have changed it, but in the vast majority of cases like this, they should absolutely seek subrogation. Wal-Mart had a damn court order giving them the money. If I had a court order for $400k to recover a $400K expense that I incurred, I'd execute on it. It'd be foolish for me not to. Don't worry, I'm sure some lib somewhere is going to make it illegal for health insurers to seek subrogation and add another few percent to the cost of health insurance so more people can't afford it. Bingo. I also think the video company is pretty stupid that 95% of their business was Wal-Mart that is why they have so much pull is the companies they deal with are so F-ing stupid that they don't realize that it isn't very good business to have all your eggs in one basket. Wal-Mart can drop them at any time and there will be 100 other companies waiting in line to do the same job for less money. It is also kind of comical that they are basically trying to blackmail Wal-Mart into getting the videos back. Sure Wal-Mart was stupid for not having a contract with the company but give me a break the video company is just trying to cover it's ass because whoever runs the company doesn't know what the hell he's doing and realized once he lost his sugar daddy that he was F'ed. Hate on Wal-Mart all you want but I would guess that the video company is going to be really screwed once Wal-Mart files suit. Don't mess with the bull you'll get the horns. I feel for the lady and obviously she needs the money a hell of a lot more then Wal Mart does but it's her attorney's fault for not realizing how much money the accident was going to cost her and trying to get more then $1,000,000 from the company that was actually at fault. Personal disability insurance is a good thing and like the millions of examples out there if you are counting on the government to save your ass your going to end up getting screwed big time. |
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Apr 10, 2008 12:29:43 GMT -6
I feel for the lady and obviously she needs the money a hell of a lot more then Wal Mart does but it's her attorney's fault for not realizing how much money the accident was going to cost her and trying to get more then $1,000,000 from the company that was actually at fault. Personal disability insurance is a good thing and like the millions of examples out there if you are counting on the government to save your ass your going to end up getting screwed big time. See libs - if you take off your blame America first glasses, you'll be able to analyze things correctly, like Hoffa has. Her lawyer should have been able to get her more than $300k for lost wages, future health care and pain and suffering. Of course, Wal-Mart was stupid for not intervening in the suit in the first instance and diverting their 400k cut begin with. There's plenty of blame to go around here, but if Wal-Mart is involved and a liberal looks at it, Wal-Mart gets all the blame. |
|
|
|
Post by Gumbyhawk on Apr 10, 2008 12:54:01 GMT -6
It doesn't take a Lib to tell that Walmart is a corrupt, shithole company that will do anything possible to earn another dollar.... this particular case aside.
|
|
