Recumbent bicycles · Public discussion

Nobody Wins

Started by Techno · · Last activity · 2 posts · 833 views

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Recumbent bicycles
Published
13 February 2004
Last activity
13 February 2004
Original author
Techno
Posts
2
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
833
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–2 of 2
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. I would suggest that readers might want to consider the following:

    The current situation does not in anyway benefit Calfree, quite the contrary. I find it difficult to
    believe that Calfree would intentionally embark on a course that would generate negative publicity
    during the introduction of a new product.

    Also, I would suggest that Calfree is entitled to be judged in light of its' past performance and
    established reputation. I do not own or ride a DF. However, I have heard only positive comments
    concerning Calfree from my DF riding colleagues. Like any company, I would imagine that Calfree has
    a number of dissatisfied customers. However, it is my impression that the vast majority of Calfree
    owners are very happy with their bikes.

    This appears to be a classic example of two people having an unfortunate misunderstanding. In the
    "big leagues" both the athelete making an endorsement and the manufacturer would be represented by
    phalanxes of attorneys and accountants. Small businesses, and even outstanding performers in "minor"
    sports seldom can afford the same level of legal representation.

  2. These things often end up in court. Too bad they did not get-it-in-writing before they began the
    project. Lawsuits are another thing that can mean the end to an otherwise "good" but small company.

    jd

    "Techno" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    I would suggest that readers might want to consider the following:

    The current situation does not in anyway benefit Calfree, quite the contrary. I find it difficult
    to believe that Calfree would intentionally embark on a course that would generate negative
    publicity during the introduction of a new product.

    Also, I would suggest that Calfree is entitled to be judged in light of its' past performance and
    established reputation. I do not own or ride a DF. However, I have heard only positive comments
    concerning Calfree from my DF riding colleagues. Like any company, I would imagine that Calfree
    has a number of dissatisfied customers. However, it is my impression that the vast majority of
    Calfree owners are very happy with their bikes.

    This appears to be a classic example of two people having an unfortunate misunderstanding. In the
    "big leagues" both the athelete making an endorsement and the manufacturer would be represented by
    phalanxes of attorneys and accountants. Small businesses, and even outstanding performers in
    "minor" sports seldom can afford the same level of legal representation.

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.