Newlab Plastics lauches lawsuit agaist equipment supplier - Plastic processing forums for extrusion information and advice and for other feed screw applications.

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!

Plastic processing forums for extrusion information and advice and for other feed screw applications.

Mrs.Robinson's Retreat

Newlab Plastics lauches lawsuit agaist equipment supplier

profile | register | preferences | faq | search

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Author	Topic: Newlab Plastics lauches lawsuit agaist equipment supplier
dean709 Member Posts: 4 From:St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada Registered: Mar 2006	posted March 27, 2006 03:39 PM New Plastics Files Suit Against FutureSoft Newlab Plastics Ltd. (St. John’s, Newfoundland), a new WPC start up company that finished building a plant in early 2005, launched a $C6.5 million law suit against Wayne Song and Futuresoft Technologies for fraudulent misrepresentation. The court documents explain that Newlab Plastics received a detailed quote from Futuresoft Technologies for the supply of a start of the art, small scale, turn-key, wood plastic composite plant. The quote also provided operational and logistical requirements for the plant’s operation, including details at to the facility height, electrical, mechanical, fuel, and raw material requirements. In addition, the quote provided technical details of the equipment, dyes, embossers, and other parts. The document contains numerous allegations that Futuresoft was in breach of the contract by failing to provide the plant as contracted, and by either fraudulently or negligently misrepresenting the nature and character of the equipment being supplied. New Plastics: Dean Payne, 709-726-3325 IP: Logged
felix Senior Member Posts: 59 From: Registered: Jul 2001	posted March 28, 2006 12:45 AM quote: Originally posted by dean709: New Plastics Files Suit Against FutureSoft Could it be just a misunderstanding? Misrepresentation is such a broad term that its open to different interpretations. IP: Logged
dean709 Member Posts: 4 From:St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada Registered: Mar 2006	posted March 28, 2006 06:36 AM No misunderstanding, we ordered a NEW Turn Key operation. We were shown a system that was fully automated, and could produce 400K an hour, we were delivered a used system that could produce much less than that. We have been told that he has done this sort of thing to others. That is why we posted we would like to get in contact with anyone who has had dealings with this guy or company. IP: Logged
felix Senior Member Posts: 59 From: Registered: Jul 2001	posted March 28, 2006 03:22 PM I know the guy you are referring to. I have not had dealings with him because I am not involved with plastic wood profiles. I did work with someone who hired Futuresoft, to install some profile dies at a company in Canada. I have heard of other people who have worked with him as well. I met Wayne a few years ago, when he first started his company, and knew of him before that as well. To be perfectly honest, and unbiased, I have never heard of him being involved in a situation like the one you are in. So I don't know what to tell you. Is the dispute over lack of a gauranteed production rate or the fact that the machinery was used. Sometimes in design you predict a certain output, and in real life you get hammered with an unexpected and frustrating low number. The only solution is to go back and see what is going on, why things didnt turn out, etc...however, selling used machinery as new is pretty unexcusable. IP: Logged
dean709 Member Posts: 4 From:St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada Registered: Mar 2006	posted March 28, 2006 03:36 PM Thanks no he sold us used equipment, we were supposed to get a gravametric weighing system instead he sent us a mix of gravametric and volumetric. Dies did not work etc, The equipment was just a mess. IP: Logged
Tom C Moderator Posts: 926 From:Brodheadsville, PA USA Registered: Jun 2001	posted March 30, 2006 07:59 AM Dean, I know Wayne, and have been to his office several times. I've built plants and have installed many lines. Frankly, I don't think you did your homework. Or perhaps you were attracted to a low price. A simple walk around Wayne's office area should have given you an idea of FutureSoft's resources and capabilities. Good Luck, Tom C IP: Logged
dean709 Member Posts: 4 From:St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada Registered: Mar 2006	posted March 31, 2006 06:47 AM Your probably right on the homework part, but selling used as new is the big problem. Would you happen to know any of the company names that Wayne has worked with or sold too thanks Dean IP: Logged
waynesong Senior Member Posts: 9 From:Manalapan, NJ, USA Registered: May 2006	posted May 30, 2006 05:59 PM This is Dr. Wayne Song. The issue between Futuresoft and Newlab Plastic is in the court now. Futuresoft has countersued Newlab for over $200,000 unpaid balance plus damage. Interested parties could send me email to know the final results. wayne@futuresoft.net. Wayne Song IP: Logged
Chris709 Senior Member Posts: 5 From:Canada Registered: May 2006	posted May 31, 2006 12:56 PM As an owner of Newlab I must reply to Dr. Song's post. The equipment sold to Newlab Plastics was old and simply did not work. Even he could not get it working when his team were at the facility trying to set it up.One of the dies that he tried to charge $24,000 for was old and had a heating plate marked "Bad" On it!!Regardless of his post a judgement has already been rendered in the courts for $6,500,000 on May 15,2006. If anyone wants to see pictures of Dr. Song's equipment, please e-mail me to see for yourself what we had to deal with. IP: Logged
Chris709 Senior Member Posts: 5 From:Canada Registered: May 2006	posted May 31, 2006 01:04 PM Further to my reply. Dr. Song has not sued Newlab and has currently has no action in front of the courts. He has already lost the lawsuit in the courts as per my previous posting. If he is going to sue us , we are waiting to be served, as simply showing the pictures of the equipment he provided and the how he failed miserably to get it working will get him laughed out of court. IP: Logged
waynesong Senior Member Posts: 9 From:Manalapan, NJ, USA Registered: May 2006	posted July 28, 2006 04:46 PM Here is the court order of July 28, 2006 to set aside the original default order, which Newlab claimed "victory" of $6.5 million against Futuresoft. Futuresoft has been into defense and counterclaim stage. We are confident to win and Newlab has to pay to Futuresoft the unpaid balance of C$200,000. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Before the Honourable Justice______________, on July 28th, 2006. UPON READING the Interlocutory Application (inter partes) of the First Defendant/First Plaintiff by Counterclaim and Second Defendant/Second Plaintiff by Counterclaim filed herein and the supporting Affidavit of the Second Defendant/Second Plaintiff by Counterclaim; AND UPON HEARING Stacey O’Dea of Counsel for the First Defendant/First Plaintiff by Counterclaim and upon the consent of the Second Defendant/Second Plaintiff by Counterclaim and Keith Morgan of Counsel for the Plaintiff/Defendant by Counterclaim; IT IS HERBY ORDERED THAT: 1.The Default Order dated 17 May 2006 and filed herein on the same day be set aside and any proceedings to execute upon same be vacated; 2.The First Defendant/First Plaintiff by Counterclaim and the Second Defendant/Second Plaintiff by Counterclaim file their respective defences, in accordance with the Rule 10.02 of the Rules of the Supreme Court, 1986. DATED AT the City of St. John’s in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador this 28th day of July 2006. IP: Logged
waynesong Senior Member Posts: 9 From:Manalapan, NJ, USA Registered: May 2006	posted July 28, 2006 04:46 PM Here is the court order of July 28, 2006 to set aside the original default order, which Newlab claimed "victory" of $6.5 million against Futuresoft. Futuresoft has been into defense and counterclaim stage. We are confident to win and Newlab has to pay to Futuresoft the unpaid balance of C$200,000. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Before the Honourable Justice______________, on July 28th, 2006. UPON READING the Interlocutory Application (inter partes) of the First Defendant/First Plaintiff by Counterclaim and Second Defendant/Second Plaintiff by Counterclaim filed herein and the supporting Affidavit of the Second Defendant/Second Plaintiff by Counterclaim; AND UPON HEARING Stacey O’Dea of Counsel for the First Defendant/First Plaintiff by Counterclaim and upon the consent of the Second Defendant/Second Plaintiff by Counterclaim and Keith Morgan of Counsel for the Plaintiff/Defendant by Counterclaim; IT IS HERBY ORDERED THAT: 1.The Default Order dated 17 May 2006 and filed herein on the same day be set aside and any proceedings to execute upon same be vacated; 2.The First Defendant/First Plaintiff by Counterclaim and the Second Defendant/Second Plaintiff by Counterclaim file their respective defences, in accordance with the Rule 10.02 of the Rules of the Supreme Court, 1986. DATED AT the City of St. John’s in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador this 28th day of July 2006. IP: Logged
waynesong Senior Member Posts: 9 From:Manalapan, NJ, USA Registered: May 2006	posted July 28, 2006 04:47 PM Here is the court order of July 28, 2006 to set aside the original default order, which Newlab claimed "victory" of $6.5 million against Futuresoft. Futuresoft has been into defense and counterclaim stage. We are confident to win and Newlab has to pay to Futuresoft the unpaid balance of C$200,000. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Before the Honourable Justice______________, on July 28th, 2006. UPON READING the Interlocutory Application (inter partes) of the First Defendant/First Plaintiff by Counterclaim and Second Defendant/Second Plaintiff by Counterclaim filed herein and the supporting Affidavit of the Second Defendant/Second Plaintiff by Counterclaim; AND UPON HEARING Stacey O’Dea of Counsel for the First Defendant/First Plaintiff by Counterclaim and upon the consent of the Second Defendant/Second Plaintiff by Counterclaim and Keith Morgan of Counsel for the Plaintiff/Defendant by Counterclaim; IT IS HERBY ORDERED THAT: 1.The Default Order dated 17 May 2006 and filed herein on the same day be set aside and any proceedings to execute upon same be vacated; 2.The First Defendant/First Plaintiff by Counterclaim and the Second Defendant/Second Plaintiff by Counterclaim file their respective defences, in accordance with the Rule 10.02 of the Rules of the Supreme Court, 1986. DATED AT the City of St. John’s in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador this 28th day of July 2006. IP: Logged
waynesong Senior Member Posts: 9 From:Manalapan, NJ, USA Registered: May 2006	posted July 28, 2006 04:51 PM Here is the court order of July 28, 2006 to set aside the original default order, which Newlab claimed "victory" of $6.5 million against Futuresoft. Futuresoft has been into defense and counterclaim stage. We are confident to win and Newlab has to pay to Futuresoft the unpaid balance of C$200,000. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Before the Honourable Justice______________, on July 28th, 2006. UPON READING the Interlocutory Application (inter partes) of the First Defendant/First Plaintiff by Counterclaim and Second Defendant/Second Plaintiff by Counterclaim filed herein and the supporting Affidavit of the Second Defendant/Second Plaintiff by Counterclaim; AND UPON HEARING Stacey O’Dea of Counsel for the First Defendant/First Plaintiff by Counterclaim and upon the consent of the Second Defendant/Second Plaintiff by Counterclaim and Keith Morgan of Counsel for the Plaintiff/Defendant by Counterclaim; IT IS HERBY ORDERED THAT: 1.The Default Order dated 17 May 2006 and filed herein on the same day be set aside and any proceedings to execute upon same be vacated; 2.The First Defendant/First Plaintiff by Counterclaim and the Second Defendant/Second Plaintiff by Counterclaim file their respective defences, in accordance with the Rule 10.02 of the Rules of the Supreme Court, 1986. DATED AT the City of St. John’s in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador this 28th day of July 2006. IP: Logged
felix Senior Member Posts: 59 From: Registered: Jul 2001	posted July 28, 2006 06:30 PM Hey that's good, glad to see that you were exonerated. This is the first time a plastics forum website has been used for updates on equipment litigation. It's kind of like kids in a lunch room fighting over who stole someones dessert. hehe IP: Logged
Tom C Moderator Posts: 926 From:Brodheadsville, PA USA Registered: Jun 2001	posted July 29, 2006 12:28 PM Felix, I interpret what is going on as; initially a summary judgement was made against FutureSoft for failutre to respond. That judgement has been put aside. Now both parties have been given a chance to develop a defense against the claims. Apparently nothing has been decided, and the legal action is just beginning. ------------------ Best Regards, Tom Cunningham www.ExtrusionTechnicalServices.com IP: Logged
Chris709 Senior Member Posts: 5 From:Canada Registered: May 2006	posted March 31, 2007 12:32 PM The lawsuit against Dr. Song and Futuresoft is still ongoing. We have since come to find three other companies who have had similiar dealings with Dr. Song. We are just going through the inevitable delays that defendants use to stall any action, but rest assured once people see the state of what we were sold, there will be no doubt as to his guilt. IP: Logged
Chris709 Senior Member Posts: 5 From:Canada Registered: May 2006	posted March 31, 2007 12:36 PM quote: Originally posted by felix: Hey that's good, glad to see that you were exonerated. This is the first time a plastics forum website has been used for updates on equipment litigation. It's kind of like kids in a lunch room fighting over who stole someones dessert. hehe Just to update your message, Dr. Song was not exonerated. Rather, the court reversed the default judgement due to the complexity of the case and to give him a chance to defend.We have proceeded with the action and anxiouslty await getting him in court to defend his actions. IP: Logged
waynesong Senior Member Posts: 9 From:Manalapan, NJ, USA Registered: May 2006	posted May 07, 2009 02:32 AM Latest update: The case is still hanging there. I was told the equipment was sold and running in Canada. Newlab and its people have gone and become history. They may never be in plastic industry again. Futuresoft Technologies Inc.(FTI) has learnt its lessons and won't deal with bad people any more. FTI has setup joint venture machinery plant in China and sold and served customers around the world since. We have made extrusion systems to make wood-plastic windows, doors, curtain wall, concrete form, car interior sheet, besides decking, fencing and railing. wayne@futuresoft.net IP: Logged

All times are ET (US)	next newest topic \| next oldest topic
Administrative Options: Close Topic \| Archive/Move \| Delete Topic
	Hop to:

Contact Us | Feed Screw Designs