If you’re involved in a Boral Trim Veneer Siding lawsuit, know that there are two sides to every story. Have you been subject to some form of governmental investigation or hearing regarding the quality of your siding? Are you concerned that your neighbors are complaining about your lack of upkeep on your vinyl siding? If so, then you may have a valid case and you need to find out more information about the Boral Trim lawsuit before you take any further action.
Boral Trim Lawsuit
This is a legal case concerning the alleged ripping of intellectual property by a licensed Florida golf betting expert. The origin of this issue has roots in a dispute over the use of copyrighted golf tips. A licensed professional called James Bialer, created and sold an app called the “Golf Betting Champ” at the app store called Play. Mr. Bialer marketed his software as a system that would allow consumers to predict different results based on the performance of certain golf courses. He was licensed to sell the app at that point and never had any intention of selling it at a higher price or using it for any other purpose. His intentions were clearly disclosed during the licensing agreement.
Mr. Bialer’s business partner, David Ziebell, did not see things in a different way. Mr. Ziebell saw great opportunity in Mr. Bialer’s venture and purchased a significant portion of Mr. Bialer’s business.
They worked together to develop and market the boral siding product line. Unfortunately, Mr. Ziebell did not disclose that he had purchased a large percentage of the stock at issue in the lawsuit at all. That contributed to a significant distortion of the scope of the litigation in Florida as a result of Mr. Ziebell’s deceptive representations of the scope of his business interests in the sales of boral siding products.
Mr. Bialer’s underlying business interest in developing and selling cedar siding products was fundamentally accurate and legal.
However, it was immaterial to Mr. Bialer’s understanding and appreciation of how the litigation in Florida moved beyond mere competition with Mr. Ziebell and could damage his business model. Mr. Bialer also provided misleading representations to potential customers about the level of quality inherent in the boral siding product and the benefits that would result from their use. Those representations resulted in a gross misrepresentation of the inherent value of cedar siding products to consumers. His representations about the quality of the product resulted in a substantial loss to Mr. Bialer and a step toward achieving the ultimate objective of the lawsuit: recouping money owed to him.
Mr. Bialer’s propensity to make representations about the quality of his cedar siding resulted in Mr. Bialer’s failure to provide quality control and prevent the injury to his company, which was the true object and purpose of the lawsuit.
Instead of vigorously defending his company’s product, Mr. Bialer allowed the litigation to move into discovery and the Army-Navy game to fall victim to what is known as the “caveat emptor” rule. Essentially, this rule permits the defendant to defeat a lawsuit by simply pointing out that all that had been requested of them was an opportunity to challenge the merits of the complaint. This is the crux of Mr. Bialer’s (allegedly) deficient leadership.
The plaintiff’s position in this case was quite unfortunate. Mr. Bialer repeatedly failed to take responsibility for his conduct of business and allowed the litigation to move into discovery, which places the burden of proof on the defendant, and generally gives the plaintiff little to no chance at recovering any damages.
Had Mr. Bialer was more focused on developing the brand image and increasing the revenue stream through his premium sports franchises, along with developing and selling the cedar boral siding products, he may have been able to avoid these problems. The Premier League owes a sincere and honest lesson to all franchisors, but especially to those who represent themselves in this type of litigation.
