In article ,
Bill wrote:

I also don't think we know enough about the OP to be certain he/she is
telling the truth here. DID the tree arrive damaged or did it get that way
afterwards? We really don't know. Did they have the hassle they related? We
don't know anything except what the OP told us and that means we don't
'know' anything at all ... except that they lost their temper and were very
rude with some peon on a help desk.



Youd could always do a little research. A 15 second trip to the
Better Business Bureau reveals:


Based on BBB files, this company has an unsatisfactory record with
the Bureau due to unanswered complaints.


see:

http://www.bbbsoutheastflorida.org/

and look up the company.


In addition, a quick Google shows this complaint is voiced by others. See:

http://forums.gardenweb.com/forums/l...020167767.html
http://gardenwatchdog.com/c/2435/


Sometimes, you know, it's not the customer's fault. We aren't all
stupid.


billo

paghat the ratgirl wrote:

...................
Honest nurseries replace anything that arrives damaged, period. If they
adhere to the policy "take it up with UPS, because we couldn't care less,"
then indeed this company should be avoided.

The NURSERY ships & the shipper is the nursery's agent, not mine. I pay
the NURSERY for the product & the shipping, I do not pay the shipper. If
the company needs to deal with their shipper or their shipping insurance,
they can do so, but if I order something that is shipped to me, the
company I bought it from & no one else WILL take complete responsibility
for getting it to me safely & as advertised.

I agree completely. With their policy, there's nothing to prevent
them from packing up a damaged plant and sending it. They leave it
up to the customer to fight with the shipper and they pocket the
money anyway.

On the other hand, it seems the original poster hasn't been back to
comment further. That might be of significance too.

Steve

On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 23:06:13 -0400, Steve wrote:



paghat the ratgirl wrote:

...................
Honest nurseries replace anything that arrives damaged, period. If they
adhere to the policy "take it up with UPS, because we couldn't care less,"
then indeed this company should be avoided.

The NURSERY ships & the shipper is the nursery's agent, not mine. I pay
the NURSERY for the product & the shipping, I do not pay the shipper. If
the company needs to deal with their shipper or their shipping insurance,
they can do so, but if I order something that is shipped to me, the
company I bought it from & no one else WILL take complete responsibility
for getting it to me safely & as advertised.

I agree completely. With their policy, there's nothing to prevent
them from packing up a damaged plant and sending it. They leave it
up to the customer to fight with the shipper and they pocket the
money anyway.

On the other hand, it seems the original poster hasn't been back to
comment further. That might be of significance too.

Steve

I recently had the pleasure of trying to deal with the UPS on an
insurance claim for a damaged antique. UPS insurance is simply a
scam. Their position was that I find out what the damaged part would
cost to replace (it is not replaceable) and leave the part with them.
The only alternative was to claim the full amount and leave the
antique with the UPS for up to 6 months while they decided whether
they would honor the claim or not. They would not accept estimates
from reliable restorers, and would not *recommend* having it repaired
as the claim might be denied. I sent off a couple of letters (by
other couriers) to local and national officials at UPS and received
absolutely no replies, not even from customer service. Personally, I
am done either receiving or shipping via UPS. Fortunately I paid for
the item with a credit card, so now it is the dealer's problem
(returned at their expense for a full refund).

Bill Oliver wrote:

In article ,
Mike LaMana fake@MikeatHeartwoodConsultingdotnet wrote:
I would be very careful posting this sort of thing..actually I wouldn't
post this sort of thing. Looks almost libelous.


Truth is an absolute defense against the charge of libel.

billo


IANAL but you might want to look that up. I had occaision to research the
matter at some depth a few years back and I don't think it's that cut and
dried.

In article ,
Bill wrote:
Bill Oliver wrote:

In article ,
Mike LaMana fake@MikeatHeartwoodConsultingdotnet wrote:
I would be very careful posting this sort of thing..actually I wouldn't
post this sort of thing. Looks almost libelous.


Truth is an absolute defense against the charge of libel.

billo


IANAL but you might want to look that up. I had occaision to research the
matter at some depth a few years back and I don't think it's that cut and
dried.


I have. In fact, it is the *only* complete defense I know of. It's
pretty cut and dried in the US, though from what I have heard it's not
so cut and dried in places like Canada. Truth is not an affirmative
defense against libel in Australia or the UK, I believe. Since this was
a FL company, I was referring only to the US.

What isn't clear is to what degree "actual malice" or a willfull
disregard for the truth is required. For public figures, actual malice
is required, and for private figures it is often not. Further, there
are statements that are libelous per se, even for public figures, and
do not require malice. Statements about performance of trade or
business fall into this category. These are considered so derogatory
that the plaintiff may not have to prove that the writer knew the
statements were false. The claims still, however, have to be false.

Thus, it is not necessary that the poster *knew* the statements were
false in order to prove libel, but is is necessary that they be false.

It is also sometimes not clear where truth ends. It is one thing to
say that a person has been demonstrated to be intoxicated with alcohol
every night for the past year (if such could be proven); it is another
to say she is an alcoholic even with that knowledge. It is one thing
to say that a vendor took your money, ran off to Rio, and did not give
you your product; it is another to call him a thief.

Further, in the US, it is also usually necessary to show some actual
harm -- which is the only thing that protects a lot of the stuff on
these newsgroups.

billo

Bill Oliver wrote:
In article ,
Bill wrote:

Bill Oliver wrote:


In article ,
Mike LaMana fake@MikeatHeartwoodConsultingdotnet wrote:

I would be very careful posting this sort of thing..actually I wouldn't
post this sort of thing. Looks almost libelous.


Truth is an absolute defense against the charge of libel.

billo


IANAL but you might want to look that up. I had occaision to research the
matter at some depth a few years back and I don't think it's that cut and
dried.



I have. In fact, it is the *only* complete defense I know of. It's
pretty cut and dried in the US, though from what I have heard it's not
so cut and dried in places like Canada. Truth is not an affirmative
defense against libel in Australia or the UK, I believe. Since this was
a FL company, I was referring only to the US.

What isn't clear is to what degree "actual malice" or a willfull
disregard for the truth is required. For public figures, actual malice
is required, and for private figures it is often not. Further, there
are statements that are libelous per se, even for public figures, and
do not require malice. Statements about performance of trade or
business fall into this category. These are considered so derogatory
that the plaintiff may not have to prove that the writer knew the
statements were false. The claims still, however, have to be false.

Thus, it is not necessary that the poster *knew* the statements were
false in order to prove libel, but is is necessary that they be false.

It is also sometimes not clear where truth ends. It is one thing to
say that a person has been demonstrated to be intoxicated with alcohol
every night for the past year (if such could be proven); it is another
to say she is an alcoholic even with that knowledge. It is one thing
to say that a vendor took your money, ran off to Rio, and did not give
you your product; it is another to call him a thief.

Further, in the US, it is also usually necessary to show some actual
harm -- which is the only thing that protects a lot of the stuff on
these newsgroups.

billo


Some people don't have have deep enough pockets to defend themselves
even if what they originally said was true. It can take years and
thousands of dollars for a libel suit to even get to court:
http://petsforum.com/psw/

Bob

In article ,
zxcvbob wrote:


Some people don't have have deep enough pockets to defend themselves
even if what they originally said was true. It can take years and
thousands of dollars for a libel suit to even get to court:
http://petsforum.com/psw/

Bob

Sure. The use of litigation or threat of litigation as a monetary tool
to stifle speech is a well-known tactic. When used by the government
(as was done by the Clinton administration to squelch opposition to HUD
policies) or by large corporations (to squelch opposition to planned
construction or zoning changes) it's called Strategic Litigation
Against Public Participation (SLAPP). If this can be shown, there are
civil and criminal remedies. When used simply as a tool to bankrupt
companies, as the plethora of frivolous government lawsuits against
gun manufacturers has attempted, it is legal.

There are also people who just get their jollies out of bringing suit
against people, and they frankly abuse their right to trial. Cases of
compulsive litigants are a dime a dozen. Usually these people hang
themselves with their own rope, eventually. In spite of what people
read, the courts generally are not all that sympathetic towards
truly fivolous suits, in my limited experience.

But both of these are separate issues compared to whether or not the
truth is an affirmative defense against libel.


billo

yeah, well the idiot neighbors filed adverse possession against part of my mothers
driveway! saying they owned it cause they cut the grass along it. their lawyer
"churned" trying to get us to go back and forth between their lawyer and ours at
about 200-300 bucks per contact. all in all it cost my retired mother around
$10,000. and the judge did not throw it out. he ruled against them, but didnt
require them to pay my mothers costs, didnt slap their wrists at all. They brought
suit cause their brother in law was a lawyer and it was going to be an exchange of
services for dental work. eventually their BIL refused to represent them (lawyers
involved in frivolous suits get slapped pretty hard by courts if they are so ruled)
so they had to get a lawyer and pay them. idiots bitched to the unsympathetic
neighbors it cost em 20,000.
Ingrid


In spite of what people
read, the courts generally are not all that sympathetic towards
truly fivolous suits, in my limited experience.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
http://puregold.aquaria.net/
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
endorsements or recommendations I make.