Thursday, December 22, 2016

Finish First Tactical Files Suit against Kalishnakov USA and Premax Manufacturing

On October 27, 2016, Finish First Tactical, LLC filed a lawsuit against Kalashnikov USA and Premax Tool and Machine, Inc, also known as Premax Manufacturing.  In the court documents (pdf), it is alleged that Finish First Tactical had an agreement with Kalashnikov USA to furnish certain parts and components to Kalashnikov USA.

Finish First Tactical then subcontracted with Premax Tool and Machine to produce some of the work for them. As part of the agreement with Premax, First Finish alleges that a Mutual Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) was signed, so that intellectual and contractual property rights would be preserved.

It is a fairly common agreement, often used to prevent a sub contractor from "cutting out the middle man".

Finish First Tactical claims that Premax and Kalashnikov USA violated the NDA, and is suing for damages of $1,000,000 each.

Finish First Tactical claims that they notified both defendants of the wrongful actions and that they refused to stop those actions, violating the NDA agreement.

This is exactly the type of disagreement that courts have been invented to settle. All three sides will be able to hire legal representatives, supply evidence, and seek discovery of evidence from the other sides.

It tends to be an expensive process.

The documents shown are from only one side of the dispute.

It may be months or years before the dispute is settled.

 ©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

  Link to Gun Watch

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

The problem in these kinds of issues is people think the wrong things and make the wrong decisions. A Letter to inform does not change a contract. contracts can change laws In certain circumstances. I once received a letter to explain a court order. the letter attempted to change exactly what the court order stated. the letter had absolutely no effect. what the order stated could only be changed by the court that issued it. Not complying with the facts of the issues can be a violation that can comeback to bite you later. If something was supposed to be done or happen on a specific date and you fail to exercise the right to force compliance you may never get compliance because you did not enforce that action on that date.

Take any date. say the very middle of the year June 30. If something is ordered to happen on June 30, June 30 only happens once a year. any other day is not June 30. Changes in contracts must be negotiated and agreed to. a letter to change something changes nothing unless you fail to object. failure to object is passive acceptance. This kind of a case requires a lot of understanding of the issues and results.

thinking something exists in a contract does not make it so. Like our second amendment issues. If it is not written it does not exist. Until the contract is modified to include the desired words those extra words do not exist.

Until Shall Not Be Infringed is changed the contract remains intact. the time laws have been in place is of no concern. the fact is the words never existed when the law was passed to give foundation for the law to be valid and enforceable. the only way to change the second amendment is by a ratified amendment process. elapse of time in not written as a means of changing the constitution. Acts passed by congress are not ratified amendments ratified by the people.