Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: 100,000 pairs on line glasses made since............

  1. #1
    Manuf. Lens Surface Treatments
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    in Naples FL for the Winter months
    Occupation
    Other Optical Manufacturer or Vendor
    Posts
    23,240

    Redhot Jumper 100,000 pairs on line glasses made since............

    Coastal Contacts Reports Financial Results for the Second Fiscal Quarter of 2009
    COASTAL CONTACTS INC COA
    6/10/2009 9:07:15 AM
    VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA, Jun 10, 2009 (Marketwire via COMTEX News


    During the quarter we announced that Coastal had shipped its first 100,000 pairs of eyeglasses since we launched this business in 2008. We believe the direct to consumer channel for eyeglasses has the potential to materially disrupt the $40 Billion annual market for eyeglasses. We are positioning Coastal to be a leader in this new and important channel."

    Other events that occurred during the second quarter:
    - Appointed Mr. Scott Turnbull, formerly of Essilor Canada, as Senior Lab Manager in charge of scaling up Coastal's prescription eyeglasses manufacturing.

    - Launched progressive lens eyeglasses line, which seamlessly combines distance vision correction with reading vision correction which represents 26% of all prescription eyeglasses sold in the United States.

    - Launched a "Virtual Mirror" which allows consumers to virtually try on eyeglasses and share the images with their friends and family through Facebook, Twitter, blogs or email in order to gain affirmation on the best choice or choices from their social network.

    - Sales of $33.3 million, a 16% increase over Q2 2008

    - 325,000 total orders shipped, an 11% increase over Q2 2008

    - $1.4 million of Adjusted EBITDA, a 56% increase over Q2 2008

    - $0.01 of net earnings per share versus a net loss per share of $0.01 in
    Q2 2008


    - $4.0 million of cash generated from operations

    - $14.6 million of cash


    See whole story at:
    http://www.stockhouse.com/News/Canad...aspx?n=7346583
    Last edited by Chris Ryser; 06-12-2009 at 01:43 PM.

  2. #2
    Manuf. Lens Surface Treatments
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    in Naples FL for the Winter months
    Occupation
    Other Optical Manufacturer or Vendor
    Posts
    23,240

    Blue Jumper No comments......................

    Funny...................not one comment on one of the largest competitors of the optical retail while "great glasses garvage" is a hot subject. :hammer:

  3. #3
    registeredoptician Refractingoptician.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    North America
    Occupation
    Optical Retail
    Posts
    1,323
    tt
    Last edited by Refractingoptician.com; 06-27-2009 at 05:45 PM.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Quebec, Canada
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    70

    100 000 where ?

    Are those number ... worldwide .. or canadian .... ??

    Can't beleive that we can't close down such a thing ... it almost means that ANYBODY can sell you a eyeglass and contact lens in Canada ....

  5. #5
    Manuf. Lens Surface Treatments
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    in Naples FL for the Winter months
    Occupation
    Other Optical Manufacturer or Vendor
    Posts
    23,240

    Redhot Jumper

    As far as I understanf they are purly Canadian, they seem to have other companies elsewhere.

  6. #6
    registeredoptician Refractingoptician.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    North America
    Occupation
    Optical Retail
    Posts
    1,323
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris Ryser View Post
    As far as I understanf they are purly Canadian, they seem to have other companies elsewhere.

    BC regulatory body , took a stab at it but they & their "team" flubbed it,in my opinion . If BC changes their legislation and wording of their act then they might have been able to succeed. Read the judges decision http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highlig...08bcsc617.html. You will wonder why they even went to court with such poor presentation .

    If another car hit your car and you sued the driver for damages , the first thing in court for you to do is PRESENT EVIDENCE . Identify positively who the driver was (a police report) ; establish the quantity of the damges (perhaps 3 body shop written estimates ) and so on .

    Well, they failed to identify the optician , the opticians name , the opticians work schedule , the current status of the opticians license , the damages and harm done , the risk of health safety to the public , and they failed to prove that it was against the regulations because of the poor wording of their act . The judge suggested they change their act and consider using more exact wording like Alberta's .

    In other words they were , in my opinion, totally inept. They deserved to lose and they did .


    When you read this, does it not seem to hinge on there being an optician or contact lens fitter supervising ? Did they establish that ? The judge accepted the respondents' claim that there was an optician /contact lens fitter supervising BECAUSE the College did not challenge it !!!!

    In my humble opinion they LOST their case right then and there !

    I am no lawyer but where do they prove or disprove that there was or was not a licensed BC optician/ contact lens fitter present ? Isn't that the major part of their case ?

    Here is a small excerpt from the judges decision :
    [13] The parties have not been able to agree on whether or not the respondents should identify the optician working for Coastal by name. No motion was brought to compel the respondents to produce the name of the supervising optician, nor is this relief sought in the petition. The respondents have apparently offered to try to reach some accommodation with the petitioner in this regard, but no agreement was reached before this hearing.

    [14] The petitioner has not asked the Court to draw any inferences from the failure to identify the name of the supervising optician. The petitioner did not challenge the fact that such a person is employed by Coastal. Therefore, I accept the respondents' evidence that a licensed optician, who is a contact lens fitter, is on staff at Coastal supervising the sales of contact lenses at issue in this proceeding.

    45] The petitioner did not allege in its petition that the respondents breached s.5(4)(c) of the Regulation, or that the level of supervision by the contact lens fitter was inadequate. In any event, for clarity, I conclude that the College has not made out a case that s. 5(4)(c) was contravened by the respondents.

    [46] The petitioner argued that public safety and health is at issue in this case due to the seller's failure to have a licensed optician who is a contact lens fitter check the original written record of the prescription of purchasers of contact lenses. It was argued that a check of the original written prescription record is necessary in case the purchaser has made a mistake in transcribing the prescription on the online form, as happened with the respondents in the case at bar.
    Conclusion
    [58] The College summarized the relief it seeks as "an injunction to prevent the sale of prescription contact lenses" by the respondents, who are not licensed opticians in the province of B.C. Yet, nothing in the governing legislation prohibits the sale of contact lenses by unregistered persons. Rather, what the legislation prohibits is an unregistered person filling a prescription by "fitting and dispensing" contact lenses: s. 5(3) of the Regulation. The respondents are not doing this and, accordingly, they are not contravening the Regulation.
    [59] The legislation allows an unregistered person to refill a prescription by dispensing contact lenses if the person is supervised by a contact lens fitter, provided that the person does not fit the contact lenses: section 5(4)(c) of the Regulation. This is what the respondents have done.
    [60] There remains an outstanding issue of contract, namely who is the seller when a purchaser buys contact lenses online through the respondents' web site. It is not necessary to determine this contract issue given the conclusion I have reached that the conduct at issue is not in contravention of the law.
    [61] The petition is dismissed with costs to the respondents.
    _______________________________

  7. #7
    registeredoptician Refractingoptician.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    North America
    Occupation
    Optical Retail
    Posts
    1,323
    Quote Originally Posted by Here is a small excerpt from the judges decision :
    [COLOR=red
    [13] The parties have not been able to agree on whether or not the respondents should identify the optician working for Coastal by name. No motion was brought to compel the respondents to produce the name of the supervising optician, nor is this relief sought in the petition. The respondents have apparently offered to try to reach some accommodation with the petitioner in this regard, but no agreement was reached before this hearing.[/COLOR]

    [14] The petitioner has not asked the Court to draw any inferences from the failure to identify the name of the supervising optician. The petitioner did not challenge the fact that such a person is employed by Coastal. Therefore, I accept the respondents' evidence that a licensed optician, who is a contact lens fitter, is on staff at Coastal supervising the sales of contact lenses at issue in this proceeding.

    45] The petitioner did not allege in its petition that the respondents breached s.5(4)(c) of the Regulation, or that the level of supervision by the contact lens fitter was inadequate. In any event, for clarity, I conclude that the College has not made out a case that s. 5(4)(c) was contravened by the respondents.

    [46] The petitioner argued that public safety and health is at issue in this case due to the seller's failure to have a licensed optician who is a contact lens fitter check the original written record of the prescription of purchasers of contact lenses. It was argued that a check of the original written prescription record is necessary in case the purchaser has made a mistake in transcribing the prescription on the online form, as happened with the respondents in the case at bar.
    Conclusion
    [58] The College summarized the relief it seeks as "an injunction to prevent the sale of prescription contact lenses" by the respondents, who are not licensed opticians in the province of B.C. Yet, nothing in the governing legislation prohibits the sale of contact lenses by unregistered persons. Rather, what the legislation prohibits is an unregistered person filling a prescription by "fitting and dispensing" contact lenses: s. 5(3) of the Regulation. The respondents are not doing this and, accordingly, they are not contravening the Regulation.
    [59] The legislation allows an unregistered person to refill a prescription by dispensing contact lenses if the person is supervised by a contact lens fitter, provided that the person does not fit the contact lenses: section 5(4)(c) of the Regulation. This is what the respondents have done.
    [60] There remains an outstanding issue of contract, namely who is the seller when a purchaser buys contact lenses online through the respondents' web site. It is not necessary to determine this contract issue given the conclusion I have reached that the conduct at issue is not in contravention of the law.
    [61] The petition is dismissed with costs to the respondents.
    _______________________________
    How does someone claim that someone is not an optician or contact lense fitter when they do not even know the name of the person that they are accusing ?

    In Ontario there was a similair "identity issue" in the Crate Classes case . But the judge said something entirely different.

  8. #8
    OptiBoard Apprentice
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Occupation
    Optical Retail
    Posts
    17
    100,000 pairs since 2008?!

  9. #9
    Manuf. Lens Surface Treatments
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    in Naples FL for the Winter months
    Occupation
    Other Optical Manufacturer or Vendor
    Posts
    23,240

    Redhot Jumper 100,000 pairs since 2008?!

    Quote Originally Posted by CharliePinglass View Post

    100,000 pairs since 2008?!

    See whole story at:
    http://www.stockhouse.com/News/Canad...aspx?n=7346583

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Quebec, Canada
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    70
    To make the thing worst ... insurance company are now referancing Coastal to their customers .... time to look at those insurance company to be sur I am not doing business with them.

  11. #11
    registeredoptician Refractingoptician.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    North America
    Occupation
    Optical Retail
    Posts
    1,323
    Quote Originally Posted by oculus View Post
    To make the thing worst ... insurance company are now referancing Coastal to their customers .... time to look at those insurance company to be sur I am not doing business with them.
    and if you go onto the opticians websites then they will also show up on the side bar

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Designer Glasses Made in China ?
    By sh4k3 in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 07-08-2016, 01:02 AM
  2. How strong can glasses be made? This got me curious
    By Myoptic33 in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 04-11-2010, 03:09 PM
  3. Can I make Hand Made glasses?
    By cityconnection in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: 05-19-2009, 02:54 PM
  4. I made 25 pairs of glasses today
    By edKENdance in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 08-12-2007, 07:35 PM
  5. How Glasses are made............................
    By Chris Ryser in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-01-2007, 05:41 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •