Correct, that's why I didn't even bother with responding. It states very clearly that exact info on the www.ftc.gov site. Of which I linked and told him about before.
Anyhow, Troy is also thinking of litigation as I said because they are losing revenue over this. Dicks put in an order for all the customers that put in an order for those rifles. So Troy has been making them to fill that order. Dicks is now refusing to accept the orders that were already paid for to be fulfilled. Not only has Dick's broken sale contracts with every customer that ordered these, they broke a signed sales agreement with Troy Industry.
One more thing Last I heard several people are in contact with the NRA for funding any form of litigation over this against Dicks. Again, Dicks is going to get screwed over this big time if they don't go through with the orders.
I was under the impression that the prices for these skyrocketed after the shooting incident? Maybe Troy decided to charge 3x the amount for the remaining order and Dick's pulled the moral card to back out.
I don't know what Troy actually said but if they know what's good for their business they'd stfu and not get involved with Dick's customers. The appropriate thing to do would be to workout whatever they need to workout with Dick's directly, otherwise to other large purchasers they look like a douchebag supplier that is a risk to deal with.
nope. they have a contract to make X number at a cost for dicks. that was not filled and now troy has a bunch of rifles they made.
as someone posted odds are they sue dicks for it.
I do understand why dicks is doing it. i even kinda agree with it. how they went about it though was silly and going to cost them.
I bet they were chomping at the bit for a Newtown incident when they bought them. Considering it was the same model weapon, I'm sure the provided them for extra inflation.I guess everyone who paid for this rifle are pissed off as they cannot make money from this price inflation.
I bet they were chomping at the bit for a Newtown incident when they bought them. Considering it was the same model weapon, I'm sure the provided them for extra inflation.
Would some people resell them? Sure.
Is it relevant? Nope.
Check your sarcasm meter.buying firearms with the intention of reselling them without an FFL is illegal.
Check your sarcasm meter.
Lol why? They have every right to do so when someone they are working with breaks the law. What is your beef with the justice system when it is working as intended? Oh wait, Corporate Thug is your handle. I'm guessing you are a Dick lover as well. Dick lover and Dick thug. Makes perfect sense now.
Correct, that's why I didn't even bother with responding. It states very clearly that exact info on the www.ftc.gov site. Of which I linked and told him about before.
since you know where it is why don't you link and quote the exact page that says this.
also im still waiting for you to post the documents you signed.
Well it sounds like Troy has a legitimate lawsuit unlike OP.
The contract is implied. Not every contract is something you sign or write out. The contract becomes valid as soon as the buyer agrees to the merchant's selling price and pays them.
The receipt isn't the contract of course. It is proof that the transaction occurred and thus evidence of the contract between buyer and seller taking place.
I guess everyone who paid for this rifle are pissed off as they cannot make money from this price inflation.
It's ironic that you accuse others of not being mature and resort to the same.
If you are going to ever graduate from online legal theory and make your debut in the courtroom, you may want to refrain from ad hominem attacks. They are not well taken by the court. As a practical matter, your attack is just not that clever. I could call you a Dick Lover because you shopped there (or attempted to at least). But see how that's not funny? Keep trying though, maybe you'll come up with something better.
Anyway, I thought it was common sense as to why they don't comment but if you want me to break it down for you, there are several reasons:
1. Strategically, you don't want to tip off a potential defendant that you are going to take legal action against them when there is a chance of resolving the issue.
2. Threatening litigation early on tends to be more disruptive to the resolution of the issue more often than not.
3. Threatening litigation INDIRECTLY to a stranger (you) creates ill will and is rightfully perceived as unprofessional. Both Dick's and the company have attorneys to handle situations like this and it destroys good faith between the companies when one goes around making comments to a random caller rather than bringing the issue to the top of the food chain.
If Troy wanted to let their consumer what the problem was, the proper way to go about is a press release. That way, there is a uniform, clear, unmistakable and documented account of their position as it relates to this particular issue.
Do you understand now? I wonder why you didn't pick up on the based on your years of legal experience.
Also, since your reading comprehension leaves something to be desired, I have no "beef" with the just system as I encouraged you long ago in this very thread to file the suit and see where it leads you. One thing is for sure, the same legal system will serve you better if you spend your time and energy developing the case for the trier of fact rather than trying to convince ATOT of the mertis.
i disagree with that too. The OP pre-paid for a item that was agreed on. That is a contract. While he SHOULD win it's very doubtful (as in he should get the price difference from buying the same gun from another shop).
How is Troy being a douche by letting customers of their products know that they understand what Dick's did was not right and they are trying to make right by whatever legal means is at their disposal? I think it's a brilliant move on their part. They are just enforcing contract law as they should. They made a deal with Dicks to fulfill 4000+ orders that they received during November. They've been fulfilling that order for weeks now and DSG decided they weren't going to do it of political reasons. This screws over both customers and Troy. If DSG gets away with this, as in no one does anything to call them out on their illegal actions, it shows the industry that Retailers can dictate anything they want to manufacturers and suppliers. It sets a bad precedent.
Jesus Christ. A receipt is NOT A CONTRACT!
Its proof of purchase THATS IT!!
Jesus Christ. A receipt is NOT A CONTRACT!
Its proof of purchase THATS IT!!
Oooo look, the big man that started the ad hominem attacks is put out when the same tactic is used back. Last I checked this wasn't a courtroom pal. I've used reason and intelligent argument as well as legal links in this thread to counter your posts. You've persisted with crap responses and ad hominem attacks yourself. So I've resorted to your level, as well as the level of several others in this thread, of attacks and now you get bent out of shape. Boo fucking hoo. Cry me a river.
You are a customer of Dick's, not Troy. You don't know what their contract agreement/obligation is with Troy and what the terms/provisions are in their agreement, and what their proper or legal recourse is between them.
It's potentially a douchebag move to throw one of their customers (Dick's) under the bus to appease wads like you. Generally the best thing for a company in their position to do is to work thru the proper channels with Dick's for the benefit of their longterm corporate relationship, and if that's not possible then pursue the proper legal action against them if necessary and beneficial in the long run.
The best thing is rarely to thoughtlessly air grievances out publicly in order to appease a bunch of interweb wendy-whiners in an attempt to grab positive pr at one of their customer's expense.