Re:Pirate Joe’s, Maverick Distributor of Trader Joe’s Produc...
by lr4444lr on Friday June 09, 2017 @05:31PM
(#14524746)
No, First Sale Doctrine is something else. This guy was not selling copies. There's something in the law pertinent to the fact that this guy bought at a retail location, which causes TJ's loss on their commercial real estate which presumably they invest in to reach the consumer public with quantities said consuming public would typically purchase. Stores can put limits on units per customer of course, but there's recourse too if the individual buys with the hidden intent of reselling. Because this guy is a de facto distributor, he needs to contract with his wholesaler to get permission to buy the offerings at a retail location for that purpose. I just can't for the life of me remember the law or terminology around it. Again, IANAL, but there is some recourse around this kind of action.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Pirate Joe’s, Maverick Distributor of Trader Joe’s Produc...
by NotSammyHagar on Saturday June 10, 2017 @01:15PM
(#14528149)
I think you are wrong. you are allowed to resell anything you buy. Many companies try to control this, like trying to block costco from reselling overpriced but legitimately bought watches (apparently they charge much more for swiss watches in the us than in say Guatemala). Costco won that legal fight. This was just a loss because of money, one side had a lot more to waste.
I also don't understand what you are getting at about TJs losing money on commercial real estate. Since TJ doesn't sell in canada, and they sold more in the stores they this guy bought from, didn't they make more money from their real estate?
Re:Pirate Joe’s, Maverick Distributor of Trader Joe’s Produc...
by afuchs on Friday June 09, 2017 @06:55PM
(#14525187)
> There's something in the law pertinent to the fact that this guy bought at a retail location, which causes TJ's loss on their commercial real estate which presumably they invest in to reach the consumer public with quantities said consuming public would typically purchase.
I thought people do this all the time, successfully defending themselves in court when necessary. Can you show me statute or a current judicial decision that says otherwise?
What happened here, is that Pirate Joe's didn't have enough money to pay their lawyers, so they gave up and settled with Trader Joe's.