The pathetic thing about this week’s ruling that Plaintiff Wing does not have to pay Defendant Tricam’s claimed expert witness fees is that the two sides had been negotiating their disagreement as to responsibility for the fees and they were just $500 apart.
Tricam could have accepted $500 less than it demanded from Wing. Instead, Tricam brought a motion for the full $4,500 that Tricam felt Wing owed Tricam and Tricam lost the motion entirely. That is, Tricam took a $4,500 loss and multiplied it by some untold amount.
We suspect that Defendant Tricam is fit to be tied about its litigation with Wing, a competing ladder maker.
The fight is whether Tricam’s ladder complies with a particular ANSI standard as it claims to. If it doesn’t (which is not conceded), does application of this sticker to the ladder (see the blown-up sticker below) amount to “deceptive trade practices” or “false advertising”?
Does Wing truly believe that ladder shoppers are tricked into buying Tricam ladders based on this sticker?
Too bad for Tricam that it has to contend with this litigation at all and now it has had to incur still more legal fees to fight over a $500 difference in recoverable expert fees, unsuccessfully, and more than likely at a cost substantially more than $500…
We started this week with a post about a GOOTCH. We end with another strong contender.