Normans Orchids / Orchids.com Order

[John M]

Oh MY GOD, Troy! LOL! Good thing I didn't quote you verbatim in my posts, or there'd still be a visible public record of what you said.

Thank you, Angela.

 

[abax]

Quick thinkin' Troy! rotflmao!

 

[paphioland]

NO! You've completely misunderstood my point.


That's not what I said. Reread my post.....carefully! He's not likely to sue because people are upset with him. Duh! But, if he feels that he's suffered financial losses because of what people post about him and his business, he could decide to sue for slander and unless the people who slandered him can prove that what they said is fact....... and not just their opinion, he'd likely win his lawsuit.

For example: Here you say he's "stealing". That's a serious acusation and it's slander. Providing poor quality product and/or poor quality customer service is NOT "stealing" by any definition as far as I know. So, congratulations, you've just opened up yourself to a lawsuit. The courts will have a very clear definition of "stealing". Your use of that word in the context of this public conversation is not likely in keeping with the legal definition.....so, you could be seriously screwed.

Now seriously, most people would not bother to sue for small, or single attacks. So, you're probably safe. However, *** said: "Well I am going to blow him up online......and I will make sure to spread word to other societies about his business practices and culture issues." This sounds like a public admission of a systematic vendetta being planned against Norman's. So, *** had better make damned sure that virtually every word that he types about Norman's is true and factual and that it is all backed up by clear evidence. Otherwise, *** could find himself being told by some court to pay Norman's Orchids for damages.

This is whole slander thing is sort of ridiculous. The united states slander is heavily heavily weighted in favor of the defendant. Luckily we still have the first amendment which gives us lots of latitude with speech. The case may be dismissed if the injurious statements were stated as opinion rather than fact, if they do not actually do injury to the plaintiff's reputation that results in financial loss; or if the statements were true. In addition a slander case must also prove that the defendant acted negligently or with malice in order to win a case. In our legal system the onus is on the plaintiff not the defendant the burden of proof is lower in a civil case. So I disagree severely with your statements. These are clearly opinions and in my case irrefutable facts. These transactions took place over state line so this is a federal case. Good luck to Norman's orchids and their ****** customer service and deceptive business practices. The whole slander thing is ridiculous for many many reasons. Bring it on.

 

[gnathaniel]

Defamation isn't my area of specialty but I think paphioland has stated it more accurately than others, it would be pretty hard for Norman Fang to recover against *** for his expressions of negative opinions and statements that he'll withhold his and his OS's future business due to those negative opinions. The initial burden of proof would be on Mr. Fang to prove that ***'s statements were not only statements of fact, rather than opinion, but were also factually false. If *** successfully argues that Mr. Fang is a public figure, probably not too hard since Norman's been pretty visible with the AOS and holds himself out to the public as an expert in orchids, then the initial burden expands to also require proof of 'actual malice' (knowledge of the statements' falsity or reckless disregard of truth or falsity) on ***'s part, a hurdle that has defeated many past plaintiffs with much stronger cases. And the presence of many other negative reviews of Norman's Orchids online would tend to weaken or defeat any argument that this one has caused particular reputational damage, even absent a need to show actual economic damages.

CDA section 230 and associated case law concerning online forums should also pretty broadly immunize ST from any publication liability even were *** found liable for defamation, especially since Heather has long had taken a wisely hands-off stance on content regulation.

 

[John M]

This is whole slander thing is sort of ridiculous. The united states slander is heavily heavily weighted in favor of the defendant. Luckily we still have the first amendment which gives us lots of latitude with speech. The case may be dismissed if the injurious statements were stated as opinion rather than fact, if they do not actually do injury to the plaintiff's reputation that results in financial loss; or if the statements were true. In addition a slander case must also prove that the defendant acted negligently or with malice in order to win a case. In our legal system the onus is on the plaintiff not the defendant the burden of proof is lower in a civil case. So I disagree severely with your statements. These are clearly opinions and in my case irrefutable facts. These transactions took place over state line so this is a federal case. Good luck to Norman's orchids and their ****** customer service and deceptive business practices. The whole slander thing is ridiculous for many many reasons. Bring it on.

Yes, yes, of course....first amendment and all that. Sure, you've got a point. However, whether or not Norman's won his case, should he file one, is not really the concern....although, you never know. Just think of the hassle and disruption to a person's life if someone sued them and in the end, lost the case anyway. It'd still take a toll....and it came to that just because they thought the pots didn't have enough medium in them?....the roots were not of award winning quality?....etc. So they went on a slanderous rampage online. Is the satisfaction derived from venting like that worth the risk of such a fight, even if you win it? Not likely. My point was that it's a matter of striking a balance and not poking a hornet's nest. I did say "Be careful"....and that's what I meant.

Consider this:

"The case may be dismissed if the injurious statements were stated as opinion rather than fact, Which is why I said to be careful. He needs to choose his words very carefully, so as to not appear to be expressing "so-called" facts....but, to be clear that it is his opinion.....it's only what HE thinks. There's a big difference between saying "person X is stealing" and "I think person X is stealing".if they do not actually do injury to the plaintiff's reputation that results in financial loss; Again, my advice to be careful applies. Stating that you will blow them up on the Internet....and make sure that everybody knows.....gives the impression of a war about to begin. Wars can be messy and things get said that can be very costly to a reputation and cause real financial losses to a business. So, it's wise to simply be careful about what you say. In this regard, whether or not the person is liable depends a lot on whether or not they did cause financial losses as a result of an unjust vendetta against the vendor. or if the statements were true. You mean like "he's stealing!" That's not true; but, it was said by a supporter. Things like this can get out of hand and people can still get themselves into trouble with their big mouths and keyboards, despite the first amendment.In addition a slander case must also prove that the defendant acted negligently or with malice in order to win a case." I think promising to "blow him up online" is proof enough of malice. Again, this is why I cautioned my fellow SlipperTalker to "be careful". I didn't guarantee that he'd lose the case if he was sued. But, his life would be a pile of **** while it was all unfolding. Who needs that?....over a disappointing plant order. Move on and save yourself the trouble. Plus, sure, tell us all here at ST about your experience and your disappointment; but, stick to the true facts and your opinion and don't make threats of taking revenge by deliberately doing harm, whether it be physical, or reputational, or financial. Don't get caught up in the frenzy of retribution and embellish anything or make up your own facts with the intension of causing maximum harm and presenting them to others as irrefutable and true....because you may one day be required to prove that "your" facts are actually true. If the plaintif shows that they are not true...and you intended to do harm and you lied and exaggerated to accomplish your goal, the first amendment won't protect you.

 

[paphioland]

Yes, yes, of course....first amendment and all that. Sure, you've got a point. However, whether or not Norman's won his case, should he file one, is not really the concern....although, you never know. Just think of the hassle and disruption to a person's life if someone sued them and in the end, lost the case anyway. It'd still take a toll....and it came to that just because they thought the pots didn't have enough medium in them?....the roots were not of award winning quality?....etc. So they went on a slanderous rampage online. Is the satisfaction derived from venting like that worth the risk of such a fight, even if you win it? Not likely. My point was that it's a matter of striking a balance and not poking a hornet's nest. I did say "Be careful"....and that's what I meant.

Consider this:

"The case may be dismissed if the injurious statements were stated as opinion rather than fact, Which is why I said to be careful. He needs to choose his words very carefully, so as to not appear to be expressing "so-called" facts....but, to be clear that it is his opinion.....it's only what HE thinks. There's a big difference between saying "person X is stealing" and "I think person X is stealing".if they do not actually do injury to the plaintiff's reputation that results in financial loss; Again, my advice to be careful applies. Stating that you will blow them up on the Internet....and make sure that everybody knows.....gives the impression of a war about to begin. Wars can be messy and things get said that can be very costly to a reputation and cause real financial losses to a business. So, it's wise to simply be careful about what you say. In this regard, whether or not the person is liable depends a lot on whether or not they did cause financial losses as a result of an unjust vendetta against the vendor. or if the statements were true. You mean like "he's stealing!" That's not true; but, it was said by a supporter. Things like this can get out of hand and people can still get themselves into trouble with their big mouths and keyboards, despite the first amendment.In addition a slander case must also prove that the defendant acted negligently or with malice in order to win a case." I think promising to "blow him up online" is proof enough of malice. Again, this is why I cautioned my fellow SlipperTalker to "be careful". I didn't guarantee that he'd lose the case if he was sued. But, his life would be a pile of **** while it was all unfolding. Who needs that?....over a disappointing plant order. Move on and save yourself the trouble. Plus, sure, tell us all here at ST about your experience and your disappointment; but, stick to the true facts and your opinion and don't make threats of taking revenge by deliberately doing harm, whether it be physical, or reputational, or financial. Don't get caught up in the frenzy of retribution and embellish anything or make up your own facts with the intension of causing maximum harm and presenting them to others as irrefutable and true....because you may one day be required to prove that "your" facts are actually true. If the plaintif shows that they are not true...and you intended to do harm and you lied and exaggerated to accomplish your goal, the first amendment won't protect you.

I'm telling you from legal standpoint ranting on an Internet forum would get tossed out of federal court. Like I said previously the onus is on the plaintiff not the defendant in this country. Stealing is obviously an opinion. Calling someone a theif is an opinion. Taken in the context of the business dealings I think they are pretty much fact. Like sending me very expensive culled previously sanderianums could easily be construed as stealing. They went out of their way to make it appear as if they were unbloomed but I could tell. They admitted they were but said screw you. I'm just keeping it real. He would have no case. This isn't what slander laws were meant to defend. In the US luckily of all countries the burden of proof for the plaintiff is so high and the barrier extensive to prove a slander case. I think he has .01 percent chance of it even making it to court. It would get tossed.

Look at all the things said about politicians. Why don't they just sue everyone?

 

[Migrant13]

And Orchids.com's money would be better spent on improving customer service rather then bringing a frivolous lawsuit against dissatisfied customers who rightly complain.

 

[JAB]

Jeez-o-petes, I leave this forum for 24 hours and the next thing I know Judge Judy is on the horn with an affidavit!?!?
I am simply relaying my ****** experience with a ****** business. Nothing I have said is untrue. I am not stating that I am going to destroy his business. I'm simply going to let folks know my experience. They can do what they wish with the info. No different then me saying Mc Donalds made me feel like **** and is terrible for me, so you shouldn't eat it. Millions upon millions have not listened to me to this date

So if Norman sues me and he loses do I get the company?? I certainly could run it better! And from what i've seen I can put a 5 year old in charge of the greenhouse and they would do better culture wise!!

 

[troy]

I think I'm done with this thread...... hopefully if anybody in the future orders from them, tell them first they want a healthy plant, not a half dead infected plant

 

[abax]

Jeez-o-petes...I love that sentence. *** you are a wonder
and funny too even though you're angry. ;>) Judge Judy...ROTFL!

 

[Happypaphy7]

Yep, won't spend a penny on them.
If you sell ****** products, at least be sorry and do something good about it to make up for it, but oh, no.
They are rude as hell. Very unpleasant.

When I pulled out that paper slip in the box and read that "do not repot for the first 30 days as doing so will damage your plant", I knew right away it was bs.
Buyers won't know plant's health and by the time 30 days is up, it is be too late to complain. They might think they are being smart this way, but only handful of complete newbie or clueless will fall for this kind of cheap scam!

If they were at least kind, I would not be as upset.

Stay away from them and save your money, people.
****** business needs positive change or naturally deserve downfall.

I've heard lots of negative stuff about them, and I learned it the hard way.

Unfortunately, they are rather big operation as I understand it, and there are many people out there who does not know better or simply don't care.
After all, they have beautiful pictures of lots of varieties to allure people.

 

[troy]

I repot all my plants right away, most of the vendors I get my plants from tell me the last time they were repotted, some recommend it to acclimate to my watering/culture requirements, they don't send validation of warranty requirements, this is the first time I've ever heard of this

 

[JAB]

Abax,
You gotta have a sense of humor in this world! You have any clue what Judge Judy makes a year? Look it up! But before breakfast because you will puke once you see the number.

You all would not believe how many PM's and emails I have received stating a similar, or even worse, story of buying from this ******! But you all are right... nice website...decent prices... large selection... hook...line....STINKER!!!!! And then to include some BS 'policy' not to repot (because they do not want you to see how bad that 'shallow root system' is on all their paphs!!) is just ludicrous.

Someone with money needs to buy this asshats hat stand and hire me as one of the gardening assistants! All sorts of problems solved!!

***

 

[Happypaphy7]

I like Judge Judy! She's so much fun to watch!
She is a multi-millionaire, right?
I once saw the figure and was very surprised as she is a TV star but with Hollywood star level salary!

 

[Lanmark]

Their problems aren't only with Paphs. I suspect anything not purchased in person is probably substandard.

 

[JAB]

Thats precisely what the messages and emails to me have been saying Lance. This is a company issue, not a genus issue.

 

[Heather]

So many people have had this experience. It's a shame really. I don't buy from them either.

 

[Lanmark]

Thats precisely what the messages and emails to me have been saying Lance. This is a company issue, not a genus issue.

Lance who? oke:



(It's Mark)

 

[JAB]

Lannnnn....Mark.... sorry. Need to read more better!

 

[Lanmark]

I won't sue you. :rollhappy: