Well, that kept me amused for a little while. Thanks PA, for this vibrant new display of utter numb-skullery!
Last edited:
Who wants jury duty?
Several months ago I was on a jury for a civil case (one business suing another over a rather complicated matter involving construction work). After the case was over, I looked up the parties via Google and learned that the plaintiff (the company and its owner, each, in fact) had a long history of criminality and had come off of probation in a big criminal tax-evasion case (state level) not long before it filed the suit. None of the jurors had a clue about that, of course, and it would not have been pertinent to the case. But the extent of the wrongoing was surprising.Who wants jury duty?
That's what I was thinking when I first saw PA's initial filing: they're going to have to open their books to provide proof of the alleged misdealings. It's going to take a helluva lot more than PDF copies of LSI's user guides to get out of this one.Probably not, but it does seem an uncharacteristic misstep to sue someone who most likely has deeper pockets than themselves and is probably in a better position to weather long and expensive court proceedings. And a jury trial? IANAL, but if it came down to evidence of comparative accuracy of bookkeeping, PA could be in deep doo-doo.
Can someone help me figure this one out? Here's what I get, so far.
1) PA had an agreement whereby LSI would print and ship PA books, but some books were printed by PA on their big laser printer.
2) PA made the books returnable.
3) LSI accepted the returns, and destroyed them, for a $2 fee. The bookstores would make a charge back to LSI, and LSI would keep $2 and charge the balance back to PA.
4) LSI accepted returns that were not printed by PA. This struck me as odd, until I considered a bookstore buying 100 copies of something and eventually returning 25. The store doesn't keep track of which books came from which supplier. Eventually, all the books be destroyed at LSI and the publisher will get the money back, save LSI's two dollar fees.
So far so good. But apparently the contract had an option where, for an additional fee, LSI would send the books back to PA. But it appears that LSI was accepting virtual returns, that is just getting the covers and destroying them? And that LSI was actually printing new books to satisfy PA's requests for fulfillment?
Is that right, or is that just PA imagining LSI was trying to cheat them?
The new contracts have that clause. Older ones, like mine, did not.
I was reading, a few pages back, the discusion about royalties. I don't know if this would have any bearing on that discusion or the ones to follow but, I recevied an e-mail today stating I had no royalties coming because my book has had no sales. That was for my first book. For my second, I received a letter in the mail stating I had sold two copies and I had made $2.55 in royalties from those sales. Below the statement, it also reads: "Per your contract, no payment is due to you until you have accumulated $49.00 in royalties."
Don't bet on it. A publisher friend of mine was dismayed to receive a shipment of books back from a wholesaler (or distributor -- but I think it was wholesaler) in unsaleable condition. I don't know how typical her situation is, but it was very expensive for her (it was a hardback illustrated children's book).. . . As others have said, returned books don't look "used". . . .
Hmmm...I was assuming in my example that if most returned books leave our store in like-new condition, most make it all the way back to the publisher that way. Obviously, I may be making a bad assumption there. But I don't think so in many cases, because we get remaindered hardbacks all the time that have been through the whole return, sell as remainder, resticker, resend process and most look pristine other than the black marker slash across the page edges.Don't bet on it. A publisher friend of mine was dismayed to receive a shipment of books back from a wholesaler (or distributor -- but I think it was wholesaler) in unsaleable condition. I don't know how typical her situation is, but it was very expensive for her (it was a hardback illustrated children's book).
Since on or around October 27, 2009, PA has owed a net amount back to LSI after offsetting monies payable to PA under the Agreement against fees and expenses payable to LSI. LSI has sent monthly invoices and statements to PA demanding payment of the amount due and owing.