• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Zon basses - is everything OK ?

#1,901
gwangi said:
Here is the problem:


No refunds period.
Click to expand...
That's not how the law works. "No refunds" means that you can't receive the bass, decide you don't like it, and then ask for your money back. It also means you can't place the order, change your mind, and then demand your money back.

"No refunds" doesn't mean, "we don't even have to deliver the goods that you were promised, as ordered, within a reasonable timeframe."

The people that waited years for their Zon bass would have a slam dunk small claims case. In fact, I bet that Joe Zon would start negotiating the second he was served court papers. He could be held responsible for financial compensation that far exceeds the cost of the refund. You could sue him for your time, court fees and interest on the money that he's been holding hostage. He'd be a fool not to negotiate the second he gets served.

America is filled with strange dichotomy. There are so many frivolous lawsuits out there, that it's nauseating. For instance, the guy who got attacked by Mark Sanchez is suing Fox Sports. Fox Sports had nothing to do with that assault, they just have deep pockets that the assault victim is trying to reach into. But then there are people on the other side of the spectrum who have been seriously wronged and make no effort to hold the offender legally liable (like the victims of Joe Zon).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: wissler, urkel3000, S_Okon and 3 others
#1,903
foothilla said:
The people that waited years for their Zon bass would have a slam dunk small claims case. In fact, I bet that Joe Zon would start negotiating the second he was served court papers. He could be held responsible for financial compensation that far exceeds the cost of the refund. You could sue him for your time, court fees and interest on the money that he's been holding hostage. He'd be a fool not to negotiate the second he gets served.
Click to expand...
Ugh, god, tell me you've never been through this without telling us. I've been through it twice, went through the legal system once- nothing works this way. Sorry. Please read the thread next time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JeroB666, Jefus, 31HZ and 1 other person
#1,904
kesslari said:
Please, everyone who is offering legal advice, do list your credentials and the state(s) in which you are licensed to practice law.
Click to expand...
My credentials are that I've been through the small claims system in California for something very similar (a contractor who failed to deliver custom made cabinetry when promised). It was a piece of cake to get my money back, including court fees and time compensation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: urkel3000 and Akami
#1,906
foothilla said:
And you've clearly never been through the small claims court process in the state of California.
Click to expand...
I have, with lawyers who normally handle multi-million dollar cases for me in my previous profession. It doesn't always go like you think and (particularly in California) there is very little attempts by the courts to go after small case defendants unless the government is the plaintiff. If you have a very malleable defendant, sure, but if they decide to just ignore the courts, very little gets done to enforce rulings.

It's wild to think this is the first time someone has thought of is. Again, please read thread. Thanks. We have addressed this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jefus and 31HZ
#1,907
Angus said:
I have, with lawyers who normally handle multi-million dollar cases for me in my previous profession. It doesn't always go like you think and (particularly in California) there is very little attempts by the courts to go after small case defendants unless the government is the plaintiff. If you have a very malleable defendant, sure, but if they decide to just ignore the courts, very little gets done to enforce rulings.

It's wild to think this is the first time someone has thought of is. Again, please read thread. Thanks. We have addressed this.
Click to expand...
There is absolutely zero need for a lawyer in a straight-ahead small claims case. The proof of payment and email exchanges are all you need to make your case. Worst case scenario, Zon files bankruptcy and the courts have to go after his assets, and/or garnish his future wages, in which case it will take a long time to get your money back.

This is the exact kind of case the small claims court system was made for. A lawyer who deals with multi-million dollar cases would want nothing to do with your little $4,000 small claims case. You've clearly never really been through this in a sensible manner.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wissler and Akami
#1,909
foothilla said:
I just want to point out something that I think should be obvious, but clearly is not.

Rumblefish and the others who had to wait years after promise date could EASILY file a case in small claims court against Joe Zon. You don't need a lawyer in a case this cut and dried, and filing a small claims case is incredibly inexpensive. A few days in court would quickly change the way Zon does business, and it would resolve your issues as well.

Don't be a sucker that enables unfair business practices. Initiate positive change and fairness by using the law.
Click to expand...
Let me guess: you've never actually done this yourself.
 
#1,910
kesslari said:
Please, everyone who is offering legal advice, do list your credentials and the state(s) in which you are licensed to practice law.
Click to expand...
Over a five year period we had two different clubs try to change our month long contracts and both of them actually had the confidence that musicians had no choice but to accept the lowered pay/number of nights. We played two nights out of the promised five and none at all at the other four night when the owner confronted us, thinking that her managerial worries were more important than fulfilling the contract.
Took a little while, but we got other gigs to replace both of them and ended up getting full pay. They would have been better off just letting us do our job as promised.

Contractual promises are binding on both parties. If it's not worth it to people to pursue, that's a case by case personal choice.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: foothilla
#1,912
foothilla said:
I just want to point out something that I think should be obvious, but clearly is not.

Rumblefish and the others who had to wait years after promise date could EASILY file a case in small claims court against Joe Zon. You don't need a lawyer in a case this cut and dried, and filing a small claims case is incredibly inexpensive. A few days in court would quickly change the way Zon does business, and it would resolve your issues as well.

Don't be a sucker that enables unfair business practices. Initiate positive change and fairness by using the law.
Click to expand...
If you are in California, maybe. And then there is the problem of collecting on a judgment even if you win. It's just a piece of paper unless you have attachable assets.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fuzzbass
#1,913
foothilla said:
He'd be a fool not to negotiate the second he gets served.
Click to expand...
Lots of fools out there. The VAST majority of defendants in small claims cases don't even respond and have default judgments awarded against them. They don't show up to court, they don't file an answer to the complaint. They simply don't give a poopie.

You still have to enforce the judgment. Joe doesn't have wages to garnish. He is self employed. Not that that matters....Is your judgment against him personally or the company? (hint..your contract is with the company). What are the company's assets?

It's not nearly as simple as you think. I managed collection law firms for over 20 years including one based in California as well as large national organizations.

Your anecdotal evidence is not data.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Angus, Chris Fitzgerald, Fuzzbass and 2 others
#1,914
Jugghaid said:
It's not nearly as simple as you think.
Click to expand...
Does he think it's simple? Maybe he doesn't think it's as simple as you infer he does.
Jugghaid said:
I managed collection law firms for over 20 years...

Your anecdotal evidence is not data.
Click to expand...
Your anecdotal evidence is data, but his isn't? Lots of defense running going on here for a guy who is taking people's money, jacking them around and not delivering.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JeroB666 and foothilla
#1,915
Akami said:
Does he think it's simple? Maybe he doesn't think it's as simple as you infer he does.

Your anecdotal evidence is data, but his isn't? Lots of defense running going on here for a guy who is taking people's money, jacking them around and not delivering.
Click to expand...
Oh, I'm not defending Zon at all. Based on what I have seen in this thread, he's a scumbag.

I'm just pointing out that there is a lot of incorrect information being put out there. And that's not my anecdotal evidence. Our default judgment rate for the second largest collection attorney network in the country and industry stats both were roughly 85.
 
#1,918
Jugghaid said:
Lots of fools out there. The VAST majority of defendants in small claims cases don't even respond and have default judgments awarded against them. They don't show up to court, they don't file an answer to the complaint. They simply don't give a poopie.

You still have to enforce the judgment. Joe doesn't have wages to garnish. He is self employed. Not that that matters....Is your judgment against him personally or the company? (hint..your contract is with the company). What are the company's assets?

It's not nearly as simple as you think. I managed collection law firms for over 20 years including one based in California as well as large national organizations.

Your anecdotal evidence is not data.
Click to expand...
The vast majority of California small claims cases are settled after filing, but before the court date. Google it, the data is available.

Depending on how the company is structured wages can be garnished, assets can be seized, bank levies can be initiated, and liens can be put on property. Zon could file bankruptcy, hide assets, and empty bank accounts - but that would be more detrimental than just paying back the $4,000.
 
#1,919
Jugghaid said:
Right, and if I'm in Virginia, do I really wanna sue them in California? Because you generally venue according to where the defendant resides.

And what attachable assets do you know that Zon has?
Click to expand...
You can appear remotely (phone or video) for a small claims cases in California, so being in Virginia is irrelevant.
As far as Zon's assets he probably has lots of valuable equipment, tools, instruments, personal property and monetary holdings. He probably also has a credit rating that he'd like to protect.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Akami
#1,920
Jugghaid said:
Lots of fools out there. The VAST majority of defendants in small claims cases don't even respond and have default judgments awarded against them. They don't show up to court, they don't file an answer to the complaint. They simply don't give a poopie.

You still have to enforce the judgment. Joe doesn't have wages to garnish. He is self employed. Not that that matters....Is your judgment against him personally or the company? (hint..your contract is with the company). What are the company's assets?

It's not nearly as simple as you think. I managed collection law firms for over 20 years including one based in California as well as large national organizations.

Your anecdotal evidence is not data.
Click to expand...
Is there somewhere a consumer can check if a business has small claims courts judgements against them?
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back