The Upgrade Company

mep said:

I bet he doesn't have one person working for him that even knows what a J standard is.

Click to expand...

Do we know that he has anyone working for him? People who've visited him at his home in the past have posted that TUC is a one-man shop. This may have changed over the past few years.

I don't have any knowledge about the number of employees he has or doesn't have. He is not the kind of guy I would ever consider for a nano-second to do business with. If I am going to have my gear modded, I prefer to have it done by the guy/company that designed and built it in the first place. If anyone truly knows how to improve the gear, it most probably will be them. I'm not into soothsayers and magicians. His whole business model reminds me of the Wizard of Oz. The illusion looks good until Toto pulls back the curtain and shows you a component painted in blue goo that may or may not have had a single component swapped out because now you couldn't tell anyway. So maybe you just paid big money to have several hundred components painted and not replaced and some foil tape wrapped on some wires and the Wizard tells you not to pull back the curtain or you will be banned from his Kingdom of Modifications. I can just imagine the fun you would be in for if you tried to take him up on his 100% buy-back guarantee. Somehow I don't think this would be painless.

Ron Party said:

Rich, do you know the facts of the infamous McDonald's lawsuit?

Click to expand...

To be honest, no tall of them, no. But here's the common sense: if I buy a cup of coffee, I expect it to be hot--boiling water is, after all, one of the ingredients. The coffee was served in a styrophone cup, a material not exactly known for its rigidity. Putting a cup of potentially near boiling hot water, especially one which is contained within a thin styrophone cup, is the last thing I or any other sensible person would do.

RUR said:

Do we know that he has anyone working for him? People who've visited him at his home in the past have posted that TUC is a one-man shop. This may have changed over the past few years.

Click to expand...

Interesting that the two links you provided were from the same person. The first link he talked up TUC and had all of his expensive Mac gear upgraded by him. The second link was post modifications and now the guy says it basically wasn't worth the money. Good luck ever being able to sell your gear after it has been sheep-dipped in the blue goo.

vinylphilemag said:

To be honest, no tall of them, no. But here's the common sense: if I buy a cup of coffee, I expect it to be hot--boiling water is, after all, one of the ingredients. The coffee was served in a styrophone cup, a material not exactly known for its rigidity. Putting a cup of potentially near boiling hot water, especially one which is contained within a thin styrophone cup, is the last thing I or any other sensible person would do.

Click to expand...

Well, what you just posted would appear to be an argument in favor of Ms. Liebeck and against McDonald's, isn't it? I mean, that container which you deem unsuitable by a sensible person standard is one which Ms. Liebeck and her nephew purchased at a drive-through window.

To make matters worse for McDonald's at trial, McDonald's argued at trial that the reason for serving such hot coffee in its drive-through windows was that those who purchased the coffee typically were commuters who wanted to drive a distance with the coffee, therefore it was essential that the coffee be at that high initial temperature in order to keep the coffee hot during the trip. However, evidence was introduced at trial which showed that McDonald's own company research indicated customers actually intend to consume the coffee while driving to their destination. I suspect the jury was not too enamored with McDonald's upon hearing that evidence. And, of course, keep in mind that Ms. Liebeck's nephew was not driving at the time of the incident but instead had parked the car so she could lift the lid to pour cream and sugar. Having stated that, it is not too difficult to imagine a slightly different scenario which would lead to the same injury: while either driving or riding as a passenger and drinking a cup of McDonald's coffee, the driver has to make a sudden stop or the driver unknowingly hits a fairly significant pothole in the roadway.

What about the fact that McDonald's had produced documents which showed that in the 10 year period before Ms. Liebeck's incident McDonald's had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald's coffee to varying degrees of severity and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries, yet McDonald's QC manager testified at trial that this number of injuries was insufficient to cause the company to evaluate its practices?

So just how many people need to suffer burn injuries before it is reasonable to demand that McDonald's change this business practice? 1,000? 5,000? Is there any number at all, or do we just give McDonald's a free pass?

You state that when you buy a cup of coffee you expect it to be hot, boiling water. I suspect Ms. Liebeck (and those 700+ previous burn victims) would agree. Now evidence was produced at trial that a number of other businesses sell their coffee at 140 degrees, yet McDonald's required their coffee to be sold at 180-190 degrees. What if the coffee was not just 180 degrees, but 250 degrees, would that make the case less frivolous? What about 500 degrees? Is there any temperature where we would agree and then say: OK, at that temperature, the case is not frivolous?

I raise these matters not for the purpose of stating, one way or the other, that the Liebeck v. McDonald's case was or was not frivolous. Instead, it is important to understand all of the facts of that or any particular case before making sweeping generalizations about frivolous lawsuits. After all, that case went to a jury of 12 people (I don't recall how many votes were required in the case - in California, 9 out of 12 is required) which deliberated and found for Ms. Liebeck (although it held Ms. Liebeck 20% comparatively at fault).

Again, there are remedies for those who are the subject of such lawsuits. So the public dialogue about them is code, usually by republican politicians, to demonstrate their support for big business at the expense of the individual.

Ron Party said:

Well, what you just posted would appear to be an argument in favor of Ms. Liebeck and against McDonald's, isn't it? I mean, that container which you deem unsuitable by a sensible person standard is one which Ms. Liebeck and her nephew purchased at a drive-through window.

Click to expand...

You are clouding the issue Ron. The cup had nothing to do with the lawsuit did it? The lawsuit was over the temperature of the coffee as it was served by McDonalds. And how you dragged the Republicans into the coffee caper escapes me. Did the Republicans tell McDonalds at what temperature to serve their coffee? Is there a law that says you can't serve coffee over a certain temperature at the drive-through window? Do we need to enact and enforce more laws to protect us from ourselves? How about food police? Maybe we should have food police stationed inside fast food places like McDonalds so they can run off the obese before they add to their fat caloric food intake. "Sir, step away from the hamburger. Put the fries down now." Now the stun gun comes out in order to blow them off of their hamburger and fries. They die from the result of the stun gun and the family sues but the stun gun maker says they had a pre-existing heart condition and that's what caused their death, it wasn't getting shocked that stopped their heart.
And the Republicans have done their job yet again.

Did you read my post? The term *frivolous lawsuits* as it is used in the public debate is code. Period. One who understands the legal system we have also understands there are remedies for those who are the subject of such lawsuits. Now in that public debate, who is using the term?

Sure Ron, I read your post. So you are saying that anytime someone in Washington discusses frivolous lawsuits it would always be Republicans? If so, I didn't know that. I don't consider myself to be either Republican or Democrat because at the end of the day, it's all crap. Remember the guy who sued Hooters because they wouldn't hire him to be a waiter? Our federal government jumped in on this one (EEOC I believe) and tried to force Hooters to hire the guy. Do you think that guy really wanted to work at Hooters or do you think he was looking for a discrimination lawsuit payoff? And what's the remedy for a frivolous lawsuit? Another lawsuit? And how much money is a corporation going to collect out of some dolt that brought a frivolous lawsuit against them?

I can't provide proof but the scuttlebut was higher tempartures provided a greater yeild of coffee.

It is a talking point of the party. Has been for years.

Ron Party said:

Well, what you just posted would appear to be an argument in favor of Ms. Liebeck and against McDonald's, isn't it? I mean, that container which you deem unsuitable by a sensible person standard is one which Ms. Liebeck and her nephew purchased at a drive-through window.

Click to expand...

Umm, no. The container was up to the job (of holding hot liquid), but the sides are flexible, so using it in such a precarious manner is inviting trouble.

Ron Party said:

Did you read my post? The term *frivolous lawsuits* as it is used in the public debate is code. Period.

Click to expand...

Huh? What code? Perhaps I'm using the term improperly. When I say frivolous lawsuits, I mean that the lawsuit is over a minor thing, which the plaintiff could probably have avoided if they used some common sense.

The gene pool is dilute enough; cases like this (and the whole hand-holding culture it engenders) only makes matters worse.

From what Ron said, I took it to mean that whenever frivolous lawsuits are brought up it's Republican "code" for protecting big business. I had never heard of this "code" before either, but apparently Ron runs in different political circles than I do.

vinylphilemag said:

Umm, no. The container was up to the job (of holding hot liquid), but the sides are flexible, so using it in such a precarious manner is inviting trouble.

Click to expand...

I think the issue was the liquid was too hot not the cup was defective. If spilling the too hot liquid was reasonably foreseeable than the entire class of "spillers" deserve protection." Suppose the spill was the result of a rear end collision. That would mean the victim exercised due care. Injury would be avoided by having the coffee at a benign temperature.

Wow we've run seriously off topic and I'm afraid it's my fault!

Can we split the thread though? It's quite interesting especially since I was a legislator.

BBB on 20/20

Hi !! I am an avid Audiophile who spend a lot of time reading all the audio stuff...I am aware of the AVS drama concerning the upgrade company....

one thing that bothers me a lot and prompted me to register to this board is the fact that TUC keeps repeating his BBB rating is top notch...well you might want to take a look a this report from 20/20.....hint: it's a scam!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yo8kfV9kONw

Guy;-)

Montreal,Canada

Great first post Guy

Bienvenue

Fascinating. I had no idea.

This reminds me of something we have here in the Bay Area (perhaps everywhere) called "Diamond Certified"

Recently we were getting bids to redo our kitchen and several of the contractors went to great lengths to state they are diamond certified and only the very best of vendors receive this distinction. When I investigated this comment it seems anyone can become diamond certified. All they need to do is pay the money to the company

caveat emptor