Is there a valid reason that it can’t be both professional and entertaining? The option isn’t binary. Having read over a lot of legalese, I’d heartily welcome something that amusing and simultaneously fact-driven.
Then why did you make it your primary rebuttal to ralph?
Not really, I guess it just comes down to stylistic difference. It comes across as showboating- “this guy lobbed me a softball, so watch me tee off on him” (to mix a metaphor). Sure, you can do it and still make your point, but the flourishes don’t add anything to the substance of the issue. They’re there only for the benefit of the author.
I tend to subscribe to the “less is more” school when it comes to this sort of letter. It is pretty clear, assuming the facts are remotely like those described, that the defamation claim is crap and very likely would blow away merely on the other side having notice that their intented target is represented. The letter as presented, while amusing, is massive overkill, possibly costing the client more in legal fees to draft than such a piddly case deserves.
Unless of course the whole point is to humiliate the dealership as publicly as possible, on the request of the client, for their (allegedly) jerkish behaviour. If so, mission accomplished. The letter has millions of times more reach that a tweet that the dealership sucks, proved by the fact that we are discussing it now.
I would say that likely is the point. If anyone on the dealership’s side has any sense, they’ll recognize that they’ve been thoroughly ridiculed and pursuing the matter further will not end well for them. A more restrained, neutral response might not have accomplished the same thing. If taking an extra hour or two of the lawyer’s time to think up some exceptionally clever lines saves tens of hours in a more protracted legal/courtroom battle, it’s well worth the cost.
In this case, they were not done solely for the benefit of the author, but to get internet publicity for the letter. To create a PR situation for the dealer where it would be unwise to pursue - and, quite possibly, to expose the dealer as indeed “sucking.”
There is probably a little “revenge is a dish best served cold” happening here for Mr. Alascio. In his version of the events, first the company tries to scam him for damages he does not feel appropriate, when the insurance company pays, they try and double dip, then they try and intimidate him into not talking about it. So there is perhaps emotional benefit to the client as well as the general entertainment value on the internet.
For an accurate, factual record.
I’m sure it was.
I live thousands of miles from Florida and have never owned (or plan to own a Hyundai), but I now have a strong suspicion that Route 60 Hyundai does, in fact, suck. If he’d written a less entertaining letter, that wouldn’t be the case.
Mission accomplished, Randazza.
I guess I don’t understand. I’m on the side of this argument that it was amusing and that Route 60 Hyundai sucks. But if you were aiming for accurate and factual, why did you create information that wasn’t provided and try to pass it off as real?
I did no such thing. I paraphrased what was in Randazza’s letter. What are you alleging that I “created.”
The issue is whether there would be any “battle” at all. My guess is that “the dealership sucks” is a non-starter for a real defamation action.
The dealership no doubt initially sent a typical lawyer’s letter, on the assumption that their target (like many folks) would simply be intimidated and knuckle under. Merely showing he’s represented would very likely be the end of the matter.
Diogenes didn’t create anything.
What he did was accept, as though true, the factual allegations in Randazza’s letter.
You, Munch, are in turn accepting the implied factual allegations of the Hyundai dealership as true.
If it isn’t entirely a frolic for the writer, I suspect this is the primary motive.
None of that information is provided or implied in the letter.
It is not known what the claim for “damages” was for. Randazza states his client denies there were any. He doesn’t allege his client was billed for having to clean a dirty car.
There is also the larger social issue regarding the prevalence of using legal clubs to inappropriate beat commoners about the head. The behaviour of the dealership in sending the initial letter is a completely inappropriate, yet not uncommon and frequently successful use of the legal system. You threaten a lawsuit that your lawyer advises you that you can’t win because (a) likely the guy you’re threatening won’t know that you can’t win, and (b) even if he does, it will cost him to prove it in court. So he’ll settle, and you’ve won, even though the law is not only not on your side, but is squarely on the other guy’s side. It’s a social good to have this sort of behaviour backfire in a public manner, because it might make the next person think twice before using it.
Yes it was.
That’s a reasonable inference from Alascio’s factual claims:
The initial customer service agent’s evaluation of the car is as being in good repair, which if believed vitiates Route 60’s damage claim.
Since we only know half of the story, it depends. There is also a social evil in using the litigation process for the collateral purpose of generating adverse publicity for your target, by making accusations in an amusing format and leaking the letter. This is also the wrongful use of a legal club.
Both can be abusive tactics, again depending on the facts. Here, all the facts we have are from the letter itself. If they are substantially true, the dealership indeed sucks and deserves public exposure and scorn.
Thing is, whether or not that’s true has nothing to do with the issue for which the letter was written, which is specifically the claim of libel regarding the client’s Twitter messages. The damages and payment are simply explaining why the situation has actually led up to the libel suit. Whether or not the client really did refuse to pay for legitimate damages has no bearing on whether or not the libel claim has any validity, and it has so little validity that it’s utterly laughable and mockworthy.