B
bharathaz
Guest
What is the name of your state? Arizona
A sole propreitor with home based International import/export broker business has been sued TWICE by a client who bought some goods overseas that was sourced by the broker. At the moment of shipment the buyer declined to inspect the goods as recommended by the broker. Once the goods arrived into USA - the goods were found to be counterfeit. The buyer first tried to claim recovery from his shipping insurance policy. Failing this the buyer then sued the warehouseman in Holland to whom the buyer sent payment for the goods. That is still in Dutch courts. Then the buyer sued the broker claiming it was the broker who was the SELLER of the goods. After discovery, he claimed a "non suit" and then sued the broker once again - this time claiming the broker is a "joint venturer" and should share in profits and losses. The verbal agreement (as were prior successful deals) between the broker and the buyer was that the buyer would offer some portion of the buyer's realized profits after goods were resold. Since the goods were fake and seized by US customs, no profits were realized. The broker has spent $30,000 plus in defending is seeking assistance in pursuing against these suits as frivolous to recover legal expenses and the headaches that have now lasted over 2 years during the entire process. Buyer is based in Virginia and the defendant has been forced to seek local Virginia lawyer in the entire 2 year process. Help sought from experienced legal entities in this field - especially Arizona based lawyers (my domicile). Thanks!
A sole propreitor with home based International import/export broker business has been sued TWICE by a client who bought some goods overseas that was sourced by the broker. At the moment of shipment the buyer declined to inspect the goods as recommended by the broker. Once the goods arrived into USA - the goods were found to be counterfeit. The buyer first tried to claim recovery from his shipping insurance policy. Failing this the buyer then sued the warehouseman in Holland to whom the buyer sent payment for the goods. That is still in Dutch courts. Then the buyer sued the broker claiming it was the broker who was the SELLER of the goods. After discovery, he claimed a "non suit" and then sued the broker once again - this time claiming the broker is a "joint venturer" and should share in profits and losses. The verbal agreement (as were prior successful deals) between the broker and the buyer was that the buyer would offer some portion of the buyer's realized profits after goods were resold. Since the goods were fake and seized by US customs, no profits were realized. The broker has spent $30,000 plus in defending is seeking assistance in pursuing against these suits as frivolous to recover legal expenses and the headaches that have now lasted over 2 years during the entire process. Buyer is based in Virginia and the defendant has been forced to seek local Virginia lawyer in the entire 2 year process. Help sought from experienced legal entities in this field - especially Arizona based lawyers (my domicile). Thanks!