AAC Tats

[JosephR]

Check out the legal section of AR15.com

Oh, the background, to be put bluntly, is they have no contract and never did. That is NOT hearsay or repeated internet babble. 'Tis true!

 

[VUPDblue]

heh, this calls for the dancing banana smiley...

 

[jmb79]

Check out the legal section of AR15.com

Oh, the background, to be put bluntly, is they have no contract and never did. That is NOT hearsay or repeated internet babble. 'Tis true!

Are you purposely trying to be vague? I ran a search under AAC in the Politics, Law and 2nd Amendment forum here on INGO and found nothing. Your description of the background makes no sense. Who is "they" and with whom does "they" not have a contract? Did "they" claim to have a contract with someone?

Please provide a reference, link or other explanation.

Thanks.

 

[JosephR]

Sorry boss. I thought you knew who AAC was and what they've been up to the last year.

AAC sued an individual for telling the world via posts on AR15.com that AAC did NOT have the contract that AAC said they did for silencers for the SCAR contract. AAC lied to their consumer base, stating they had a contract when they did not. They said FN chose their silencers for the contract. They also sold silencers which resembled the SCAR silencers and said they were the exact silencers. They lied in every instance.

The end of the lawsuit is near. The 2nd motion to compell discovery in the last year has been filed. AAC cannot provide any evidence that they had more than a request for silencers for testing from FN.

They are cooked. The lawsuit will be over soon.

BTW- I said legal section of AR15.com, not this site.

 

[jmb79]

Sorry boss. I thought you knew who AAC was and what they've been up to the last year.

AAC sued an individual for telling the world via posts on AR15.com that AAC did NOT have the contract that AAC said they did for silencers for the SCAR contract. AAC lied to their consumer base, stating they had a contract when they did not. They said FN chose their silencers for the contract. They also sold silencers which resembled the SCAR silencers and said they were the exact silencers. They lied in every instance.

The end of the lawsuit is near. The 2nd motion to compell discovery in the last year has been filed. AAC cannot provide any evidence that they had more than a request for silencers for testing from FN.

They are cooked. The lawsuit will be over soon.

BTW- I said legal section of AR15.com, not this site.

I do know who AAC, I have some of their products. You are correct, I competely missed that you wrote legal section of AR15.com. My appologies for that.

I was quite unaware that AAC was involved in any lawsuit as well as unaware of any claims they may have made regarding the SCAR contract.

 

[JosephR]

They are also being sued by Surefire.

 

[jmb79]

Ok, so I looked at the PACER docket (the Court's special website where you can view the documents actually filed in the case). What happend was that yesterday there was a settlement conference with the magistrate judge. ACC and the defendant/counterclaimant, Ian Garner, reached a settlement. Today, because the parties settled, the case was dismissed.

 

[JosephR]

Yep, it's true. AAC couldn't produce any evidence to support their claim of a contract so they folded. How sad for them.

 

[theweakerbrother]

They folded but if they settled out of court, they aren't out of business are they?

 

[JosephR]

They were the plaintiff here and they lost. Wait until surefire is finished with them!

 

[jmb79]

Do you know the terms of the settlement? If you don't know the terms, you cannot know that they lost.

Also, how would you define "lost?" If they claimed $75,000 in damages but accepted $65,000 in settlement, is that "losing?"

I don't know the settlement terms either and I have no loyalties or sympathies for either side. Unless you know the terms of the settlement, you cannot even begin to evaluate "winners" and "loosers."

 

[JosephR]

****

 

[jmb79]

****

Quite right. Loser not looser.

I'd inquire regarding the legitimacy of your claims but I suspect you'll not divulge your alleged insider knowlege. So be it. Apparently you do have a dog in the fight.

 

[JosephR]

****

 

[jmb79]

****

It's hard to understand why you're still yapping about this. First you send me a PM asking me to delete the post in which I state the fact that the case settled. Then you send me increasingly vitriolic PM's about how important it is to control the flow of information about this case and then, in your last PM, you call me a **********.

Haven't you gotten it out of your system yet?

 

[VUPDblue]

Alright children, that's enough.


CLOSED!