Court throws out allegations in MACadam vs. Apple case
A Superior Court in Northern California last week ruled that Apple's resellers have provided enough evidence to proceed with charges that the company allegedly committed acts of fraud and negligent misrepresentation.
In an August 26th hearing in the case of MACadam Computers vs. Apple Computer, the Santa Clara Superior Court ruled that the Apple reseller could proceed with charges of fraud and negligent misrepresentation against Apple, despite the computer maker's objections.
According to court documents received by AppleInsider, the Court also rejected two motions by Apple that moved to strike allegations of unfair competition and illegal receipt of funds. The Court ruled that MACadam could proceed with its claims against Apple for unfair competition in its retail division and illegally receiving funds belonging to the resellers.
However, the court also sided with Apple, saying that some of MACadam's claims did not have enough merit to continue. The Court said that Apple could not be held liable for a violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, citing a failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
The presiding judge said he would re-review Apple's objection to accusations by resellers that Apple violated the Unruh Act and Civil Code, after giving MACadam 20 days leave to amend and resubmit that portion of its complaint. The Act is meant to cover all arbitrary and intentional discrimination by a business establishment on the basis of personal characteristics, such as sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, or medical condition, but is not necessarily limited to those characteristics.
Last year, three Apple resellers filed law suits against the company in California courts, including San Francisco-based MACadam Computers.
The resellers charge Apple with breach of contract and fraud, claiming that the computer maker damaged their businesses by withholding pay for repairs they made under warranty, by overcharging them for parts, by charging resellers higher fees for Apple hardware then it does its own retail stores, and by expressing a low opinion of resellers in an effort to gain more direct sales business.
In April, the same three resellers launched a Web site to document and share information concerning unethical or illegal business dealings by the computer maker.
In an August 26th hearing in the case of MACadam Computers vs. Apple Computer, the Santa Clara Superior Court ruled that the Apple reseller could proceed with charges of fraud and negligent misrepresentation against Apple, despite the computer maker's objections.
According to court documents received by AppleInsider, the Court also rejected two motions by Apple that moved to strike allegations of unfair competition and illegal receipt of funds. The Court ruled that MACadam could proceed with its claims against Apple for unfair competition in its retail division and illegally receiving funds belonging to the resellers.
However, the court also sided with Apple, saying that some of MACadam's claims did not have enough merit to continue. The Court said that Apple could not be held liable for a violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, citing a failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
The presiding judge said he would re-review Apple's objection to accusations by resellers that Apple violated the Unruh Act and Civil Code, after giving MACadam 20 days leave to amend and resubmit that portion of its complaint. The Act is meant to cover all arbitrary and intentional discrimination by a business establishment on the basis of personal characteristics, such as sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, or medical condition, but is not necessarily limited to those characteristics.
Last year, three Apple resellers filed law suits against the company in California courts, including San Francisco-based MACadam Computers.
The resellers charge Apple with breach of contract and fraud, claiming that the computer maker damaged their businesses by withholding pay for repairs they made under warranty, by overcharging them for parts, by charging resellers higher fees for Apple hardware then it does its own retail stores, and by expressing a low opinion of resellers in an effort to gain more direct sales business.
In April, the same three resellers launched a Web site to document and share information concerning unethical or illegal business dealings by the computer maker.
Comments
Your knowledge is flawed. Whoever suggested this to you simply did not represent whatever story they told as either being accurate. We did not and never have sold to large or even medium businesses. Our goal over the years has been to service the small business and home users. We have sold more expensive CD's, but we never have sold one in the price range that you have suggested. We did on the otherhand sell iomega Premium re-writable CD's for somewhere in this price range, but these were priced less than anyone else out there. As you may realize there is a differene between one product to another, as well as products having better warranties. I would suspect that if something was worth more, it generally cost more.
Apple's actions are what this is about! They have deceived, manipulated and treated all dealers unfairly as well as unethically acquired confidential user information for their exclusive benefit and to the dealers proximate harm. We gladly support the product and our customers. But to be consistently misled while being told that we were being fairly treated is absolutely inappropriate.
If you prefer to have only AppleStores that is your perogative, but this market will suffer and so will Apple. I don't want to see the Mac go away, but the final effect will do nothing but hurt all of us.
But this of course is an entirely different issue than your law suit. I completely agree that having multiple sources for Mac products can only be a good thing, I just find MACadam an unlikely poster-child for the benefits of a free Mac market.
[...It's been several years but, I stand by my cd-r example. It may have been $4.49 or something but it was way above the going street price at the time for the exact same product.]