Just another reason...

…to read the Privacy, Terms of Use, and Terms of Sale statements of companies you intend to do business with!

Scumbag Vendors strike again!!!

Sounds like something that thrown out on this a s s scumbag vendor does.

Granted they claim it’s only while in the first 90 day period, but read the entire ‘Policy’ and you’ll see the punishment can be quite sever! Really, do they honestly believe they have the right to take away our rights, even with this “hidden clause”?

Absolutely sounds like someone we all know. I wonder how his cult members would feel about these ‘hidden clauses’ that they claim they would have no issue with. I call BS!

If I saw this, I would never be buying anything from them.

** KlearGear.com Ordered To Pay $306K To Couple Who Wrote Negative Review
By Chris Morran June 26, 2014

The KlearGear Terms of Sale still have this ridiculous Non-Disparagement Clause, though you first have to find a link to these terms on the company’s Help page.
The KlearGear Terms of Sale still have this ridiculous Non-Disparagement Clause, though you first have to find a link to these terms on the company’s Help page.
The saga of the harmless little negative online review that resulted in a $3,500 “Non-Disparagement Fee” continues, with a Utah court ordering the owners of KlearGear.com to pay damages of $306,750 to the couple who wrote that review. But whether the company will ever pay up is another story.
Once again, for latecomers to this story… Several years ago, some folks in Utah went to make a tiny, under $20 purchase from an e-tailer called KlearGear.com. Their order never came and they canceled the purchase. They then went online and wrote a negative review of the website. When KlearGear eventually got wind of this feedback — several years after it had been posted — it slapped the couple with a $3,500 Non-Disparagement Fee.
The company claims that this fee is disclosed in its Terms of Sale that must be agreed to before making a purchase. The couple says it was not in the terms when they placed their order — which, again, never arrived, which to us would seem to void any non-disparagement agreement.
Even if the clause was in the terms, we found it buried two levels deep on the KlearGear site, on a page that is separate from what comes up when the shopper clicks on the Terms of Sale button. Clicking on that button takes you to a “Help” page, and about halfway down that page there is another link to the actual page with the Non-Disparagement clause.
When the couple didn’t pay, KlearGear turned their alleged debt over to a collections agency, which reported the $3,500 to the credit bureaus, resulting in damage to the couple’s credit score.
Represented by advocacy group Public Citizen, the couple sued KlearGear in a Utah court. KlearGear never responded to the complaint and in May, the court issued a default judgement against the company.
KlearGear’s owners finally spoke up after the judgement, saying it didn’t count because the France-based parent company says it never received any notice of the suit. And in spite of the fact that the KlearGear site listed a Grandville, MI, address (and shows a photo of a building at that address) for its “Legal Department,” the parent company claims it has no presence in the U.S. and the court documents should not have been sent to that address.
But that company has not made good of any of its threats to have the judgement vacated. And so the case continued to the damages phase yesterday, with the court awarding the plaintiffs $306,750 in compensatory and punitive damages plus attorneys fees.
“Now we’re going to be figuring out where KlearGear’s assets are and how we can collect them,” Public Citizen attorney Scott Michelman, who has been representing the couple in this case, tells Ars Technica. “The French company that appears now to own KlearGear made a series of statements to the media in which they attacked this lawsuit and me in particular but they never made any kind of motion to the court so there was nothing for the court to rule on as far as their objections were concerned.”
In a statement to Consumerist, the couple explains that the purpose of the suit wasn’t about getting paid.
“The support we’ve received (and continue to receive) is far more of a win in my eyes than any amount of money,” they write in an e-mail. “If this means that any other retailer thinks twice before threatening a disgruntled customer, then we’ve done what we set out to do.”

I for one would welcome any quote you have of any NACHI member saying they would be okay with a hidden clause like this. I know I don’t agree with it. I’m sure you have one since you made the claim it exists, or should I call BS?

Go watch the south park episode Ihumancintipad

Seen it. Can’t ever unsee it now. Gross! :freaked-:

You’re talking to Cameroon, right? :twisted:

No longer possible. The MB has been scrubbed. Just gonna have to take my word for it! :mrgreen:

Uhh, your friend’s posts were scrubbed, not his “cult members” as you referred to them. Nice try. :smiley:

Since you are pushing for a reply…

HA, as expected on both accounts. You do have some saved but you don’t have the quote you claimed exists. LOL Oh well, maybe next time.