No(ro) cashmere

Here we go… TKW has sued Noro in U.S. District Court as well (along with KFI, the Elaloufs, and Opperman): false advertising, breach of express and implied warranties, perfidious dealing, civil conspiracy. Complaint here.

(ETA: this is fresh — Noro would not have been served with this complaint yet.)

(ETA2: page 7 of the complaint is out of order, but it’s there.)

This entry was posted in legal briefs, themes. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to No(ro) cashmere

  1. Peg says:

    In both lawsuits, the yarn shop says their damages exceed $150,000.
    Putting aside the new ‘new’ math, from simple arithmetic days, $150K plus $150K equals $300,000. That’s some sum.

    You can bet that if someone caused me to lose $300K, I’d be talking to a lawyer about it.

    Knittah asks whether TKW is insane. On a loss exceeding $300K, it would be insane to NOT talk to a lawyer.

    After reading the discussion made about the law, what’s insane to me is that anyone in KFI’s position would even run the risk of selling yarns that were not what they are supposed to be.

    I’m sure KFI lost customers over this. I’m sure KFI had had to hire lawyers to respond.

  2. hallie says:

    Although distributors take the word of suppliers for the content, in this case once KFI was informed that their product had a problem, they chose to stonewall and deny and falsify. This leads one to believe that it was they who decided to play around with the contents. There were two other companies that had the same problem and they challenged their suppliers who made good with replacements and/or compensation for relabeling. Both companies offered to replace products on store shelves. After all, if a distributor can’t trust a supplier to make good, why would they buy from them again?

  3. Christy says:

    So, who’s next? Is anyone with luxury fibers going to have to look for this kind of thing? Did their lawyer put them up to it? Just how much time and money are they going to waste to MAYBE get some sort of “restitution”? And really, just how responsible *is* a distributor for fiber content and labeling?

    This kind of thing makes my head spin, and makes me want to spend a day following plaintiffs around saying “really? REALLY? really!” in different tones.

  4. Andrea Rainey says:

    Page 7 (of 21) is missing in the .pdf file, so it jumps from 19 to 24, doggone it.

  5. Knittah says:

    Is it just me, or is TKW insane? Or the lawyer-partner of TKW is looking for something to do? Any theories on why they have launched this crusade?