Mystic Tan Suing California Tan - Page 4 - tanTALK

DWhite6872 · 03-03-2005, 04:02 AM

ohhh banana....so young...and naive....you invented the leg buck booster......not "the buck booster" my child....

HOT STUFF · 03-03-2005, 11:09 AM

Sport, let me tell you what I looked at before I bought the mystic. 1. Does it work? Yes, I think most people
can agree with that. 2. Can I expect to make money from the unit? Yes, I felt that I could make money on the unit but that might change in the future. I felt that at the minimum, I would receive my investment back. I've
had the machine for a year and I am happy so far. 3. Who is the leader in marketing? For me the answer was
mystic. They are on tv and newspapers and magazines. I investigated spray tanning for a year before I bought
one. When ever someone wanted to know if a had the spray tan , they asked if I had the mystic or the spray tan .
No ever asked me if I had a magic or any other system and they have not to this day. 4. Which booth would keep me out of the legal system. There are only 2 and one of them was the mystic. 5. Would pb use the money from me to compete with me? I thought that my be a possibility. I already have a strong chain in my area, so I thought
there was less of a chance. If I was in the Dallas market, my thoughts would be different. This is how I made
my decision. After having a year to think about it, I would make the same choice. If your choice is different
thats ok too. We all have to do what we feel is best for ourselves.I have friends that thought the magic was best for them. I understand that there is a lot of anger against pb, but you can't strip legal rights away just because you don't like them. If that was the case, you and I might not have them either.

HOT STUFF · 03-03-2005, 11:35 AM

I don't know why bed manufactures didn't battle it out. It would seem to me who ever invented the lamp would have the patents. The bed is just a power supply. It really dosen't matter what you and I think, it is what
the courts think. It will be decided in the courts and we will both live with it. If the courts decide mystic
and doc are wrong, I have no problem with that. I am not married to mystic. I might change my mind if that happens. As far as what mystic pays for their mystic, what does that matter. You pay what the market will bear.
If a piece of equipment costs me a million dollars but brings me in 2 million and another piece of equipment cost me 10 thousand and brings me in 5 thousand, which one is the better deal?

_________________
[ This Message was edited by: HOT STUFF on 2005-03-03 11:43 ]

JeffinKC · 03-03-2005, 11:49 AM

Hot Stuff.....I was going to call you Hottie until I saw on your profile you are a dude.

Anyway, Once again anyone can file a lawsuit it does not mean that they are legally right.

1. Does it work? I think that is the least you should expect from a $30k+ piece of equipment.

2. Can I expect to make money? Once again the answer should be yes as it should be with all sunless or equipment purchases in general.

3. Who is the leader in marketing? It depends on the area, a few years ago most the calls I got were for "Mystic". Anymore people just call looking for spray tanning .

4. Which booth will keep me out of the legal system? Again as a consumer it is said that you need to even ask that question. ITS may reach on agreement with Laughlin however it is my understanding that most companies involved in litigation can indemnify the salon owner taking you "out" of any litigation.

5. Would PB use the money to compete with me. Personally I believe the answer is in a heartbeat if they choose to. PB has national aspirations and every penny we give them assists them in that pursuit. It will first happen regionally which I believe puts you at a higher risk than some but we should all be concerned.

At one time Mist-On and Mystic were the only games in town. I am very happy we now have a choice. I hope when they open up the street from you, offering a free month of tanning and undercutting your Mystic pricing, you will still be happy with your decision.

synthesized · 03-03-2005, 12:32 PM

'indemnification' is typically a deposit against potential loss, in kind or in promise. It has no real value unless called upon to serve a judgement. It it fails to fullfill the judgement, then the judge has power to assign, or permit action to fullfill, and can included ceasation, aquisition, punitive, and more. I'd love to see Magic Tan's financials.

HOT STUFF · 03-03-2005, 01:05 PM

Jeff, if ITS reaches an agreement with laughlin they will be paying the same people that you are having a problem with and useing your money. Idemnification only means that if they lose they will pay up to the money they have. If the courts award $20,000 per bed and the company only has $10,000, guess who pays the rest.
If I remember correctly there was a judgement in Nevada for over $100,000 per booth. Usually they look at what are the actual damages and then add punitive damages to that as a punishment and to keep someone else from trying the same thing. I am not a lawyer, I just play one on tv. What I looked at is not limited to sunless but what I would look at in any equipment purchase.By the way, I am a male, in Texas, a dude is a New Yorker in his first cowboy hat. You know the saying "everything is bigger and better in Texas" and we wouldn't lie to you.

Jeni and Mike · 03-03-2005, 01:26 PM

HotStuff,

Thanks that's my first chuckle of the day Mr Texas.

JeffinKC · 03-03-2005, 01:38 PM

I know a guy from Texas would never lie....where are those WMD's that we found in Iraq?

Any agreement with Laughlin by ITS or any other company would pay him a fraction of the price not the total purchase price going to him or Mystic for buying one of their units direct.
Personally I don't think any of these companies should settle with him because I believe this matter should have its day in court. However sometimes it is easier and less costly to go the way of settlement.
I understand the risks of legal action and the risk of contributing money to a company like PB. I weighed those risks like you did but obviously came to a different conclusion than you. Hopefully neither of us will regret our decision.

HOT STUFF · 03-03-2005, 01:40 PM

Which part made you laugh, the part with my brilliant reasoning or the dude part. I have been told that I am
funny. "in the ha ha way, not the other" Mr. Texas, I kind of like that.

HOT STUFF · 03-03-2005, 01:47 PM

Jeff, first of all, I am not going to discuss politics with you and I wish you the best of luck in all you do.
ps. clinton said they were there too. So we have two liars in a row.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Mystic Tan Solution vs California Tan	Kimberleigh	Sunless	15	08-11-2016 01:34 PM
Somebody outta be SPANKED	Sheila in Minnesota	General Tanning Industry Discussions	75	06-26-2005 08:10 AM
Mystic vs California Tan Solution...	Kimberleigh	New To The Tanning Business	1	09-07-2004 10:19 AM
Is California Tan Suing Bruce Schoenfelder?	CHUNN	General Tanning Industry Discussions	9	12-15-2001 09:51 AM

03-03-2005, 04:02 AM	#31 (permalink)
DWhite6872 Waiting Confirmation Join Date: Apr 22 2004 Posts: 3,646 Rep Power: 0	ohhh banana....so young...and naive....you invented the leg buck booster......not "the buck booster" my child....

03-03-2005, 11:35 AM	#33 (permalink)
HOT STUFF Join Date: Jan 5 2005 Location: Texas Posts: 759 Rep Power: 21	I don't know why bed manufactures didn't battle it out. It would seem to me who ever invented the lamp would have the patents. The bed is just a power supply. It really dosen't matter what you and I think, it is what the courts think. It will be decided in the courts and we will both live with it. If the courts decide mystic and doc are wrong, I have no problem with that. I am not married to mystic. I might change my mind if that happens. As far as what mystic pays for their mystic, what does that matter. You pay what the market will bear. If a piece of equipment costs me a million dollars but brings me in 2 million and another piece of equipment cost me 10 thousand and brings me in 5 thousand, which one is the better deal? _________________ [ This Message was edited by: HOT STUFF on 2005-03-03 11:43 ]

03-03-2005, 12:32 PM	#35 (permalink)
synthesized Join Date: Apr 18 2004 Posts: 222 Rep Power: 0	'indemnification' is typically a deposit against potential loss, in kind or in promise. It has no real value unless called upon to serve a judgement. It it fails to fullfill the judgement, then the judge has power to assign, or permit action to fullfill, and can included ceasation, aquisition, punitive, and more. I'd love to see Magic Tan's financials.

03-03-2005, 01:05 PM	#36 (permalink)
HOT STUFF Join Date: Jan 5 2005 Location: Texas Posts: 759 Rep Power: 21	Jeff, if ITS reaches an agreement with laughlin they will be paying the same people that you are having a problem with and useing your money. Idemnification only means that if they lose they will pay up to the money they have. If the courts award $20,000 per bed and the company only has $10,000, guess who pays the rest. If I remember correctly there was a judgement in Nevada for over $100,000 per booth. Usually they look at what are the actual damages and then add punitive damages to that as a punishment and to keep someone else from trying the same thing. I am not a lawyer, I just play one on tv. What I looked at is not limited to sunless but what I would look at in any equipment purchase.By the way, I am a male, in Texas, a dude is a New Yorker in his first cowboy hat. You know the saying "everything is bigger and better in Texas" and we wouldn't lie to you.

03-03-2005, 01:26 PM	#37 (permalink)
Jeni and Mike Join Date: Nov 3 2002 Posts: 272 Rep Power: 22	HotStuff, Thanks that's my first chuckle of the day Mr Texas.

03-03-2005, 01:38 PM	#38 (permalink)
JeffinKC Join Date: Apr 21 2001 Posts: 418 Rep Power: 24	I know a guy from Texas would never lie....where are those WMD's that we found in Iraq? Any agreement with Laughlin by ITS or any other company would pay him a fraction of the price not the total purchase price going to him or Mystic for buying one of their units direct. Personally I don't think any of these companies should settle with him because I believe this matter should have its day in court. However sometimes it is easier and less costly to go the way of settlement. I understand the risks of legal action and the risk of contributing money to a company like PB. I weighed those risks like you did but obviously came to a different conclusion than you. Hopefully neither of us will regret our decision.

03-03-2005, 01:40 PM	#39 (permalink)
HOT STUFF Join Date: Jan 5 2005 Location: Texas Posts: 759 Rep Power: 21	Which part made you laugh, the part with my brilliant reasoning or the dude part. I have been told that I am funny. "in the ha ha way, not the other" Mr. Texas, I kind of like that.

03-03-2005, 01:47 PM	#40 (permalink)
HOT STUFF Join Date: Jan 5 2005 Location: Texas Posts: 759 Rep Power: 21	Jeff, first of all, I am not going to discuss politics with you and I wish you the best of luck in all you do. ps. clinton said they were there too. So we have two liars in a row.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)