In this Issue
|
|
|
|
|
About Us
|
|
Andrew Traub is my name, and I want to help you and your business. Call me at 343-2572 or email me.
|
|
|
|
Free Initial Consultation
|
Did you know that the Traub Law Office offers a free initial consultation?
Part of my dedication to my clients is ensuring that there is a good fit between you and I.
The purpose of the free initial consultation is for you to tell your story, learn about me,
and then we can decide whether we would work well together. There is no obligation on your part,
so why not schedule a free initial consultation today?
|
|
|
 |
|
Joke of the Month
|
Outrageous Lawsuits
A minister and his wife sued a guide-dog school for $160,000 after a blind man learning to use a seeing-eye dog trod on the woman's tows in a shopping mall.
Southeastern Guide Dogs Inc., a thirteen-year-old guide-dog school and the only one of its kind in the Southeast, raises and trains seeing-eye dogs at no cost to the visually impaired.
The lawsuit was brought by Carolyn Christian and her husband, the Reverend William Christian.
Each sought $80,000. The couple filed suit thirteen months after Ms. Christian's toe was stepped on and reportedly broken by a blind man who was learning to use his new guide dog, Freddy, under the supervision of an instructor.
They were practicing at a shopping mall.
According to witnesses, Ms. Christian made no effort to get out of the blind man's way because she "wanted to see if the dog would walk around me."
-American Tort Reform Association
|
|
|
|
10 Killer Ways To Multiply Your Sales (especially if you sell information online)
1. When you make your first sale, follow-up with the
customer. You could follow-up with a "thank you"
email and include an advertisement for other products
you sell. You could follow-up every few months.
2. You could upsell to your customers. When they're
at your order page, tell them about a few extra related
products you have for sale. They could just add it to
their original order.
3. Tell your customers if they refer four customers to
your web site, they will receive a full rebate of their
purchase price. This will turn one sale into three sales.
4. When you sell a product, give your customers the
option of joining an affiliate program so they can make
commissions selling your product. This will multiply
the sale you just made.
5. Sell the reprint/reproduction rights to your products.
You could include an ad on or with the product for
other products you sell. You could make sales for the
reproduction rights and sales on the back end product.
6. You could cross promote your product with other
businesses' products in a package deal. You can
include an ad or flyer for other products you sell and
have other businesses selling for you.
7. When you ship out or deliver your product, include
a coupon for other related products you sell in the
package. This will attract them to buy more products
from you.
8. Send your customers a catalog of add-on products
for the original product they purchased. This could be
upgrades, special services, attachments, etc. If they
enjoy your product they will buy the extra add-ons.
9. Sell gift certificates for your products. You'll make
sales from the purchase of the gift certificate, when
the recipient cashes it in. They could also buy other
items from your web site.
10. Send your customers free products with their
product package. The freebies should have your ad
printed on them. It could be bumper stickers, ball
caps, t-shirts etc. This will allow other people to see
your ad and order.
|
Unusual "Defenses" to Defamation
Defamation lawsuits are not easy to win because the plaintiff must both prove the difficult elements of his or her case and avoid the many defenses to defamation. This article discusses two unusual "defenses" to defamation, the unreal but practical defense of I-dare-you-to-sue, and the real but rare defense of consent.
I-Dare-You-To-Sue
Publishers of tabloid newspapers are notorious for their willingness to press the law of defamation to its limits. For example, an ex-service employee with a grudge against a celebrity may be inclined to say bad things about the celebrity. If not outright lies, the bad things may be exaggerations that are arguably false. Nevertheless, the publisher of a tabloid newspaper, more interested in the sensational nature of the allegations than their truth, may publish the allegations with attribution to "a source." The publisher of the tabloid newspaper may know in his or her heart that the allegations are false, but by attributing the statements to the source, the only recourse left for the celebrity is an unproductive or counterproductive defamation suit against the source.
More interested in the sensational nature of allegations than their truth, the publisher of a tabloid newspaper may be tempted to go one step further and publish bad things about a celebrity without attribution to any source. There is no real defense for doing this, but there is a practical defense. The publisher of the tabloid newspaper may calculate it is worth it in terms of increased sales and profits compared to the risk and cost of defending a defamation lawsuit. In other words, the publisher may be daring the celebrity to sue. If the celebrity does sue, the publisher will have the opportunity to collect more dirt on the celebrity in the discovery phase of the lawsuit. Most celebrities avoid the hassle of a lawsuit by not suing.
Consent
Consent is a complete defense to defamation. A person may consent to a defamation being published against them for money, as a publicity stunt, or as a distraction from real events.
Bill and Hillary Clinton's Fight: Truth, I-Dare-You-To-Sue, or Consent?
During the Monica Lewinsky scandal, the National Enquirer published a story alleging that Hillary Clinton had a fight with her husband Bill, the President of the United States, over his womanizing. The story alleged that the Secret Service had to separate them. Some of Bill's supporters denied the story, saying it was just another false claim by his opponents. There are three possible explanations: (1) the story was true; (2) the story was not true, but the National Enquirer published it to dare the Clintons to sue for defamation, during which they could be questioned under oath; or (3) the story was not true, but was published with the Clinton's consent so that Bill's supporters could claim that his opponents were making false claims against him. Consent became a real possibility when it was learned that a law firm representing the Clintons also represented the National Enquirer.
