Dick's is a bunch of *****.

[Regs]

Because it's the best home defense weapon there is? There has always been a questionable debate about whether a shotgun or AR15 is a better defensive weapon. The answer always breaks down into what a person shoots better. I have more experience shooting a rifle since that is what I've shot before in both civilian and military areas. I have used a shotgun once. The same goes for my family in what their experience with home defensive weapons are.

So the choice for me is clear for a home defensive item. The fact that you are trying to question my choice of home protection and making it off as something dismissive is quite irrational.

I think his point is, why would a court of law reward you more money so that you can buy the same weapon elsewhere at no added expense to you? Can't you settle on a cheaper gun (no substitutes or alternatives) ? Your money is no longer tied up with the original sale. Why should DSG still be liable for what other merchants are pricing their inventory? This is what your lawyer will have to persuade to the plaintiff. I seriously doubt class action law suites like these will ever make it to a case-by-jury. At most, arbitration, let a lone a settlement.

If you can somehow sell me on this, you will have my full support.

 

[olds]

..anyway, still don't see why you need an AR15

Nobody gives a fuck what you think

 

[dabuddha]

My god you're still whining like a little girl over this?

I 100% guarantee that you will not win a lawsuit against Dicks. In fact, if you sue them over this matter and win, I'll give you $100. If they had kept your money, then you would have had a case against them but not only did they refund your money 100%, they give you an additional $100. You were made more than whole after the whole matter was completed.

 

[HumblePie]

I think his point is, why would a court of law reward you more money so that you can buy the same weapon elsewhere at no added expense to you? Can't you settle on a cheaper gun (no substitutes or alternatives) ? Your money is no longer tied up with the original sale. Why should DSG still be liable for what other merchants are pricing their inventory? This is what your lawyer will have to persuade to the plaintiff. I seriously doubt class action law suites like these will ever make it to a case-by-jury. At most, arbitration, let a lone a settlement.

If you can somehow sell me on this, you will have my full support.

Because that is the law. Those are the damages. The law states that if there is a breach of contract for a sale, that the original seller is still on the hook to provide the item to me. If that means Dick's will have to go out of their way to pay more for the item and then give it to me, then that is what happens. If I have to purchase the item elsewhere on my own, they are legally bound to pay any increased cost that there may be.

Now, if this had been a problem with Troy and not DSG, then DSG could have been cool with me if they came and ASKED if I wanted either a refund with a GC or a substitute of an equal or greater value item. THAT offer is legal to do by law. Dick's Sporting Goods did not do that though. They just decided to unilaterally shaft everyone over politics.

Again, if I have to seek litigation to resolve this issue, the damages are what it would take to put me where I would be with a completed transaction and if nothing had ever occurred with this fiasco. Which means I have the item in hand and at no loss to monetary value beyond what I originally paid to have that item. Which means any court fees, attorney fees, my salary for time spent pursuing legal redress are all damages that can be sought.

If Dick's came to me though right now and offered a rifle of equal or greater value instead of the refund, I would take it at this juncture.

 

[HumblePie]

My god you're still whining like a little girl over this?

I 100% guarantee that you will not win a lawsuit against Dicks. In fact, if you sue them over this matter and win, I'll give you $100. If they had kept your money, then you would have had a case against them but not only did they refund your money 100%, they give you an additional $100. You were made more than whole after the whole matter was completed.

And you are a troll like purbeast0. You have no place in adult conversations. Go back to your bridge.

 

[crownjules]

This thread is like a case study on the Dunning-Kruger effect in action. So much assertiveness by people clearly lacking knowledge.

 

[purbeast0]

And you are a troll like purbeast0. You have no place in adult conversations. Go back to your bridge.

yes didn't you get the memo? if you disagree with him you are a troll.

 

[HumblePie]

yes didn't you get the memo? if you disagree with him you are a troll.

No, people like waggy and Regs disagree, but their way of doing so is not trollish. You are a troll and I call out trolls when I see them. Deal with it.

 

[Dari]

so anyone who disagrees with you is a troll - got it.

Basically. I analyzed his "holiday" or "Christmas" gift argument and he refused to mount a defense against what I said. I still don't believe him when he says it was a Christmas gift when it was clearly a good deal and he pounced. Hell, he saw the deal in a Black Friday ad, not necessarily while he was looking for the gun per se.Even now he's arguing that he may never get the chance to buy the gun again when he clearly can. I haven't even bothered to google this particular AR-15 I doubt it's in the $5000 range as he claims. I'm not a lawyer so the argument between him and the people here who say they're lawyers is interesting to me and neither side is backing down. But the part that bothers me is the mental anguish part. It's too contemporary an argument for it to be believable. I think he is over-reacting on that issue and it may undermine his other argument.

I'm from Texas and Texans have a habit for being dogged in their pursuit of justice when they feel they've been wronged. So I'm not surprised at his insistence on being right. What I take issue with is him piling on the claims against the company, especially the mental anguish. It just isn't something I'm used to seeing Texans do. Different times, I guess. I really hope he keeps us updated and this case does not enter a blackhole of some sorts.

 

[purbeast0]

i just hope he posts in here when he gets laughed out of the court room. because we all know he would post here if it actually goes somewhere.

but i fully expect to be syringered.

 

[HumblePie]

Basically. I analyzed his "holiday" or "Christmas" gift argument and he refused to mount a defense against what I said. I still don't believe him when he says it was a Christmas when it was clearly a good deal and he pounced. Even now he's arguing that he may never get the chance to buy the gun again when he clearly can. I haven't even bothered to google this particular AR-15 I doubt it's in the $5000 range as he claims. I'm not a lawyer so the argument between him and the people here who say they're lawyers is interesting to me and neither side is backing down. But the part that bothers me is the mental anguish part. It's too contemporary an argument for it to be believable. I think he is over-reacting on that issue and it may undermine his other argument.

I'm from Texas and Texans have a habit for being dogged in their pursuit of justice when they feel they've been wronged. So I'm not surprised at his insistence on being right. What I take issue with is him piling on the claims against the company, especially the mental anguish. It just isn't something I'm used to seeing Texans do. Different times, I guess. I really hope he keeps us updated and this case does not enter a blackhole of some sorts.

Dari, this particular gun was a DSG exclusive. Sold through no other outlet to civilians. Currently, the only way to purchase this gun now is through individuals or small time dealers that bought it for resale at places like gun shows. These individuals right now are charging those $5000 prices I claimed earlier despite many of them purchasing the same gun for $800-$1000 range.

As for not being able to buy it in my lifetime again, that is due to the current political shitstorm going on with so many knee jerk reactions calling for bans on these guns. If there didn't happen to be a 10 year ban on these guns previously, that call for the bans would not be making the market for these items go as crazy as it is. So because of the current political climate, there is certain a chance that this may be the last opportunity I'll have to own such a gun or give it as a gift to family as a holiday gift.

Again, I have stipulated several times WHY that is a valid basis for a mental anguish claim through previous case law precedents. I also stated that if things were different (not a holiday season purchase or the possible political ban) that the mental anguish claim would not have a single basis I could use. But I also said that if I do pursue litigation I will do so with the intent to seek the maximum I can under the law. If the law allows me to seek mental anguish then I will. If the law awards it to me and/or punitive damages I am not going to complain.

My whole point is that this entire fiasco is going to cost DSG a buttload of cash if they don't straighten out fast. If DSG continues with their course of action they face litigation claims by consumers, possible litigation by suppliers, and possible penalties by the FTC.

 

[Dari]

Dari, this particular gun was a DSG exclusive. Sold through no other outlet to civilians. Currently, the only way to purchase this gun now is through individuals or small time dealers that bought it for resale at places like gun shows. These individuals right now are charging those $5000 prices I claimed earlier despite many of them purchasing the same gun for $800-$1000 range.

As for not being able to buy it in my lifetime again, that is due to the current political shitstorm going on with so many knee jerk reactions calling for bans on these guns. If there didn't happen to be a 10 year ban on these guns previously, that call for the bans would not be making the market for these items go as crazy as it is. So because of the current political climate, there is certain a chance that this may be the last opportunity I'll have to own such a gun or give it as a gift to family as a holiday gift.

Again, I have stipulated several times WHY that is a valid basis for a mental anguish claim through previous case law precedents. I also stated that if things were different (not a holiday season purchase or the possible political ban) that the mental anguish claim would not have a single basis I could use. But I also said that if I do pursue litigation I will do so with the intent to seek the maximum I can under the law. If the law allows me to seek mental anguish then I will. If the law awards it to me and/or punitive damages I am not going to complain.

My whole point is that this entire fiasco is going to cost DSG a buttload of cash if they don't straighten out fast. If DSG continues with their course of action they face litigation claims by consumers, possible litigation by suppliers, and possible penalties by the FTC.

So, tell me, what makes this particular Troy AR-15 from DSG more exclusive than a Troy AR-15 sold elsewhere?

 

[HumblePie]

So, tell me, what makes this particular Troy AR-15 from DSG more exclusive than a Troy AR-15 sold elsewhere?

Because it wasn't sold elsewhere through a major retailer or distributor. So if I bought it from a private citizen it wouldn't be new nor if I bought it through a gun show would I have the backing of a major retailer if I need it.

 

[Dari]

Because it wasn't sold elsewhere through a major retailer or distributor. So if I bought it from a private citizen it wouldn't be new nor if I bought it through a gun show would I have the backing of a major retailer if I need it.

So it isn't really exclusive then. You may have to go through smaller stores but it's still possible.

 

[HumblePie]

So it isn't really exclusive then. You may have to go through smaller stores but it's still possible.

No, it pretty much is, unless I want to wait months for a gun show to have it. I went to one the other day and it wasn't shown there locally at the Live Oak Civic center.

It's not sold anywhere else right now that I could possibly buy it for new. DSG was the only exclusive retailer for this item. Period.

 

[SandEagle]

Nobody gives a fuck what you think

why so hostile against me, olds? :hmm:

 

[Regs]

bah

 

[Thebobo]

I know the law. ".

I am he law!

 

[SP33Demon]

Facebook Page LINK:

Troy Industries
Troy Defense (Troy), a division a Troy Industries, Inc., was deeply dismayed and shocked to hear through national media outlets that Dick’s Sporting Goods (DSG) made the decision to stop selling the Troy Carbine along with other modern sporting rifles. DSG did not contact or inform Troy of this decision prior to notifying the public. Nor was Troy informed by DSG that cancellation letters were being sent to customers, set to arrive on Christmas Eve (a day Troy was closed).

Troy has invested millions of dollars in its facility and operations to bring its first ever modern sporting rifle to the market under an exclusive contract with DSG. In selecting DSG as the sole distributor of the Troy Carbine, Troy relied on DSG’s high sales forecasts and sales potential prior to undertaking the significant financial and corporate commitment necessary to design, develop, manufacture and bring a new modern sporting rifle to the marketplace. Based on DSG’s press release, DSG’s anti-gun stance is clear – DSG will not continue modern sporting rifle sales and Troy will sadly not see its Carbine readily available — despite the outlay of millions of dollars by Troy and its commitment to support DSG in its distribution efforts.

Troy is currently researching other channels to ensure continuous and consistent distribution for its rifles. But please note, Troy’s pricing to DSG was based upon volume sales. It is unlikely that pricing to any other outlet in the future will support the pricing granted to DSG. Troy understands the anger of certain DSG customers whose purchases have been cancelled – you got a great price from DSG. However, Troy, itself, cannot come anywhere close to offering the Carbine at the price DSG was offering it. DSG devalued and diluted Troy’s brand when it offered for sale the Carbine at a steeply discounted price during Thanksgiving week. As a result of the sale price set by DSG, DSG oversold and overpromised its inventory. Nonetheless, the current ill-will could have been avoided had DSG not terminated modern sporting rifle sales, promptly canceled overpromised orders, and forthrightly communicated with Troy.

Troy is hopeful that it will soon identify a new distribution channel for its Carbine. We ask for your patience and support during this difficult and transitory time.

Best regards,

Stephen Troy
CEO & Founder
The Troy Group
www.troydefense.com
www.troyind.com
www.troyprepared.com

The important part is bolded.

1) You aren't going to win a case where a company oversold a product during Black Friday, and I'd love to see your "precedent" for this. This happens hundreds of times every Black Friday and companies are legally prepared for such a scenario. Furthermore, you have been spouting the entire thread that DSG didn't sell you the gun "b/c they didn't want to", but their official defense is that they ran out of inventory. Companies intentionally do this all of the time to ramp up sales during the holidays. Is it ethical? Hell no, but it generates hype and boosts revenue for shareholders. See #2 for an example that happened to me.

2) Your claims for "mental anguish" because it was a "gift for the holidays" is hilarious. Do you call yourself a man? Because real men don't act like this.

Should I sue for "mental anguish" vs Walmart because my pre-ordered big screen LED HDTV is sold out and now discontinued (they were liquidating that model, which has actually happened to me) and I had to accept a refund + GC? Hell no, and this is what's wrong with Americans today: they will claim "mental anguish - I'm gonna sue!" every time they don't get their way. Grow the fuck up and stop clogging our courts with frivolous lawsuits.

3) DSG showed compensatory consideration by giving you a $100 GC, which you accepted in addition to the full refund. As a result, DSG's defense is that you are not owed a dime since you did not reject the $100 GC. I would agree with DSG.

4) The only additional money that you could sue for is in small claims, which would be for the price of an AR15 at the time of the sale, not the price after the Newtown killings which you are spouting off at the mouth as omfgit'sover5000!!!!! If ARs were being sold for $1600 and you paid DSG $800, then you could try small claims for the $800 difference. However, see #3 (DSG will counter that you already accepted $100 from them and you will still be laughed out of the courtroom).

5) Are you going to sue me for the "mental anguish" this post caused? If so, I can PM you my address.

 

[dabuddha]

And you are a troll like purbeast0. You have no place in adult conversations. Go back to your bridge.

I like your childish retarded retort. So you'll take me up on my bet? If you win in court, I'll give you $100. If you lose, you give me $100.

 

[Regs]

I am he law!

lol.

7.4.2
(Full compensation)

​

(1) The aggrieved party is entitled to full compensation for harm sustained as a result of the non-performance. Such harm includes both any loss which it suffered and any gain of which it was deprived, taking into account any gain to the aggrieved party resulting from its avoidance of cost or harm.
(2) Such harm may be non-pecuniary and includes, for instance, physical suffering or emotional distress.


That is the law, but there is a difference of knowing the law and how it is practiced and applied. So I can't say your either wrong or right, but you might be fighting an uphill battle since the other part of 7.4.2 remedy by full compensation states: Such damages may not exceed the loss which the party in breach foresaw or ought to have foreseen at the time of the conclusion of the contract, in the light of the facts and matters of which he then knew or ought to have known, as a possible consequence of the breach of contract.

 

[HumblePie]

"The law states that if there is a breach of contract for a sale, that the original seller is still on the hook to provide the item to me" .


I know the law. CISG Article 74:

"Damages for breach of contract by one party consist of a sum equal to the loss, including loss of profit, suffered by the other party as a consequence of the breach. Such damages may not exceed the loss which the party in breach foresaw or ought to have foreseen at the time of the conclusion of the contract, in the light of the facts and matters of which he then knew or ought to have known, as a possible consequence of the breach of contract."

The idea of this remedy of law is by weighing the measure of damages to put the aggrieved party as nearly as possible into the position in which it would have been if the contract had been duly performed. Maybe what you're thinking is "expectation interests" or "reliance expenditures", which you had neither of. You did not accrue any expenditures or liabilities based on detriment of the sales contract. You knew what the fair market value of that particular item was, and the sale of that item was exclusive to DSG.

There is a difference, of course, of knowing the law and practicing the law. Some jurisdictions interpret the law differently than others, and some areas of conflict will be more sympathetic to your cause. I think you're in a losing proposition, but I would love to hear if you get anything more out of it .

Uh no. It's no different that if I bought gold at $50 an ounce from a supplier who failed to deliver as promised. If supplier was unwilling to deliver at $50 an ounce and current market value was no $100 an ounce, they would have to pay the difference in cost to deliver if I had to go elsewhere. Such cases have happened before and case law sides with me on this.

The difference amount would be compensatory damages. Time lost, interest on the money that the supplier held during that time, and if I was to sell the item for a gain would be consequential damages.

What I seek to gain is the item I paid $848 for. Nothing more and nothing less. If I have to buy the gun else where for $1500 or even $5000, DSG is liable for the difference. If I have to pay an additional amount in lawyer fees or court costs to force DSG to pay, then they are liable for that amount as well. I am not seeking consequential damages as I had no intention to resell the firearm. Nor was it an investment for me. If the court grants any other awards beyond compensatory damages I'm not going to turn them down.

As for my ability to win a court case over this issue for compensatory games; I feel, as well as my lawyer, thus far it is a very likely that the outcome is that I will win. I need neither your blessing nor the blessing of anyone else from this forum in this case. I'll answer honest questions about the law as I know it and even about my motivations. The trolls though can kiss my ass, not that I'm calling you one Regs. Purbeast0, Corporate Thug, Sp33deamon, rudeguy, SunnyD, and a few others are just low life trolls that lack the ability to hold an adult conversation based upon their posts in this thread.

But as it stands, I had a sales agreement with DSG. They failed to perform. That failure stemmed from an intentional decision, and not from a situation out of their control. I, as well as many others, are asking them to make good on the original agreement. If they fail to do so, then they will be sued. It's as simple as that.

 

[HumblePie]

lol.

7.4.2
(Full compensation)

​

(1) The aggrieved party is entitled to full compensation for harm sustained as a result of the non-performance. Such harm includes both any loss which it suffered and any gain of which it was deprived, taking into account any gain to the aggrieved party resulting from its avoidance of cost or harm.
(2) Such harm may be non-pecuniary and includes, for instance, physical suffering or emotional distress.


That is the law, but there is a difference of knowing the law and how it is practiced and applied. So I can't say your either wrong or right, but you might be fighting an uphill battle since the other part of 7.4.2 remedy by full compensation states: Such damages may not exceed the loss which the party in breach foresaw or ought to have foreseen at the time of the conclusion of the contract, in the light of the facts and matters of which he then knew or ought to have known, as a possible consequence of the breach of contract.

The perceived damages is what it will cost to place that item in my hands at the time of the breach in the contract. How many times does this have to be repeated?

 

[Corporate Thug]

The important part is bolded.

1) You aren't going to win a case where a company oversold a product during Black Friday, and I'd love to see your "precedent" for this. This happens hundreds of times every Black Friday and companies are legally prepared for such a scenario.

2) Your claims for "mental anguish" because it was a "gift for the holidays" is hilarious. Do you call yourself a man? Because real men don't act like this.

Should I sue for "mental anguish" vs Walmart because my pre-ordered TV is sold out and now discontinued (they were liquidating that model, which has actually happened to me) and I had to accept a refund + GC? No, and this is what's wrong with Americans today: they will claim "mental anguish - I'm gonna sue!" every time they don't get their way. Grow the fuck up and stop clogging our courts with frivolous lawsuits.

3) DSG showed compensatory consideration by giving you a $100 GC, which you accepted in addition to the full refund. As a result, DSG's defense is that you are not owed a dime since you did not reject the $100 GC. I would agree with DSG.

4) The only additional money that you could sue for is in small claims, which would be for the price of an AR15 at the time of the sale, not the price after the Newtown killings which you are spouting off at the mouth as omfgit'sover5000!!!!! If ARs were being sold for $1600 and you paid DSG $800, then you could try small claims for the $800 difference. However, see #3 (DSG will counter that you already accepted $100 from them and you will still be laughed out of the courtroom).

5) Are you going to sue me for the "mental anguish" this post caused? If so, I can PM you my address.

This is hilarious. HP said my case w/ newegg was so different because they had a cancellation policy I had to agree to before submitting my order. Troy's says there was an inventory error JUST LIKE MY NEWEGG ORDER.

Dick's has a proviso JUST LIKE NEWEGG

http://www.dickssportinggoods.com/helpdesk/index.jsp?display=store&subdisplay=cancel

Cancellations Due to Order Processing Difficulties
Occasionally, orders or parts of an order are cancelled by our system for various reasons. Some reasons are:

The item(s) are not available.
Your payment information could not be verified.
The shipping address could not be verified.

If your order is cancelled, you will receive an important notice regarding your order via email, which will explain the reason for the cancellation. You will not be billed for any cancelled items.

So where is the difference?

My psychic abilities tell me OP will either come up with some irrelevant circumstance to try to distinguish his case or he'll just call me troll for not agreeing with him...

 

[HumblePie]

The important part is bolded.

1) You aren't going to win a case where a company oversold a product during Black Friday, and I'd love to see your "precedent" for this. This happens hundreds of times every Black Friday and companies are legally prepared for such a scenario.

2) Your claims for "mental anguish" because it was a "gift for the holidays" is hilarious. Do you call yourself a man? Because real men don't act like this.

Should I sue for "mental anguish" vs Walmart because my pre-ordered TV is sold out and now discontinued (they were liquidating that model, which has actually happened to me) and I had to accept a refund + GC? No, and this is what's wrong with Americans today: they will claim "mental anguish - I'm gonna sue!" every time they don't get their way. Grow the fuck up and stop clogging our courts with frivolous lawsuits.

3) DSG showed compensatory consideration by giving you a $100 GC, which you accepted in addition to the full refund. As a result, DSG's defense is that you are not owed a dime since you did not reject the $100 GC. I would agree with DSG.

4) The only additional money that you could sue for is in small claims, which would be for the price of an AR15 at the time of the sale, not the price after the Newtown killings which you are spouting off at the mouth as omfgit'sover5000!!!!! If ARs were being sold for $1600 and you paid DSG $800, then you could try small claims for the $800 difference. However, see #3 (DSG will counter that you already accepted $100 from them and you will still be laughed out of the courtroom).

5) Are you going to sue me for the "mental anguish" this post caused? If so, I can PM you my address.

1) That is Troy's interpretation of why DSG is deciding to pull the orders. However, we all know the real reason as per the public address. And as for sales, once money has exchanged hands, the sales contract has been engaged. I did not sign any paperwork that stated that in the event of lack of product, of which there isn't, that they may hand me a refund back instead. All that was done at the time of purchase was tendering of cash and a acceptance letter provided by DSG to deliver the item when they received it in stock. Stock was being provided by Troy and was continuing to be provided without any foreseeable stoppage.

2) Your opinion on that matter does not matter at all.

3) I accepted nothing from DSG. Hence the current course of action I am taking. DSG trying to force me to accept a refund and $100 GC is not a legally binding agreement on my part.

4) Incorrect. I can sue for the difference in cost at the time of the breach. Which is NOW.

5) You are a troll that is ignorant of the law.