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

[HumblePie]

Humblepie, can you provide the link to DSG's terms and conditions?

That would be for the online store. There are no terms and conditions that are presented to customers when purchasing in the retail store. So trying to equate the two means nothing.

And the main reason is when you purchase in the store, any retail store, normally the item is on hand the moment you purchase it. The few cases that are a bit different is when something has to be delivered later. Such as a big appliance or a backorder purchase like mine. There have been time in the past when I bought an appliance to be delivered later that I had to sign a terms and conditions document. Other times I have not. This time with this particular purchase I signed no such document.

 

[Chess]

It doesn't matter. By law they aren't legally allowed to back out because of politics. There is no exception in the law for that. I don't understand why people fail to comprehend this simple concept. They are not legally allowed to back out of the deal and issue me a refund or anything else as a buy off with the refund with it unless I agree to it.

I am willing to bet Dick's legal team knows the law, and the loopholes better than yours I am willing to bet $100 bucks on it too :biggrin:

 

[Geosurface]

Big difference between someone claiming to us in this thread that they legitimately were anguished and yes that would be unmanly and ridiculous.

Vs. him listing a mental anguish claim as one of a litany of legal attack vectors on DSG which is open to him depending on how cooperative they are or aren't. He listed it while in the heat of frustration too, so get off his back.

 

[SP33Demon]

Online purchases and B&M purchases are different. Most of the time, the online store is a sister company of the main retail outlet. Even in some B&M stores or purchases you are required to sign contractual sale term agreements that are binding. Such as when buying an automobile.

But in my case, I didn't sign or acknowledge any such term that allowed Dicks to back out of the deal and refund my money as a counter offer to the deal. The fact you keep trying to state the opposite, like CT did, is very strange.

For posterity purposes - most online stores, including Dick's or Microcenter or Newegg or Walmart can cancel an order at any time but you think you are special because you went into the store to buy the item.

Where is your evidence that the signed paperwork from B&M differs from their online policy? Scan it and post for us to see. Be sure to highlight where they guaranteed you would receive this item.

Dick's lawyers are sure as shit going to argue that their company policy is already posted online for all of you to see, which says that they can cancel a sale at any time if the item isn't available.

 

[HumblePie]

For posterity purposes - most online stores, including Dick's or Microcenter or Newegg or Walmart can cancel an order at any time but you think you are special because you went into the store to buy the item.

Where is your evidence that the signed paperwork from B&M differs from their online policy? Scan it and post for us to see. Be sure to highlight where they guaranteed you would receive this item.

Dick's lawyers are sure as shit going to argue that their company policy is already posted online for all of you to see, which says that they can cancel a sale at any time if the item isn't available.

LOL, I have a sales receipt and a piece of paper with my personal contact information to be used to contact me when the delivery of the product is ready to complete. The sales receipt is the standard register receipt every one gets when they buy from Dicks B&M. It has nothing special to it other than being a recorded that a transaction was tendered. I signed no document otherwise. Nor do I need to scan my receipt and personal contact paper for some random person on the internet demanding I do so.


And Dick's lawyers can't argue that online policy must be acknowledged as in store policy. doesn't work that way. Why? It can't be legally assumed that everyone that buys from Dicks in the store shops at their online store front as well or that a given in store customer has access to a computer that would allow the to view their online store policies. To even suggest that as a legal defense is ludicrous.

 

[Regs]

Did you get your gun yet?

 

[BrightCandle]

Admittedly the UK isn't the USA but here you would have to prove a loss for a useful legal case. Since you have your money back you are at least even, the useless voucher is a poorly judged compensation but neitherless you haven't incurred anything more than a small time loss.

I know you are angry with Dicks, I get that. It is the reason I myself run a rule that every company gets three strikes, once they hit it I don't ever deal with them again and I make sure to tell others why I won't. This ensures I never get too angry and it sets my expectation of how long to pursue a problem.

In this case do you really want to pursue a year or more of legal action when you could be doing something else with that time? It isn't about right and wrong its simply about whether its genuinely worth it to you. Don't take responsibility to protect others, just ensure you are doing this because that is what thou want to do with your life. If you had other plans for this year there might be value in letting this wrong go and just refusing to deal with Dicks again.

 

[HumblePie]

Admittedly the UK isn't the USA but here you would have to prove a loss for a useful legal case. Since you have your money back you are at least even, the useless voucher is a poorly judged compensation but neitherless you haven't incurred anything more than a small time loss.

I know you are angry with Dicks, I get that. It is the reason I myself run a rule that every company gets three strikes, once they hit it I don't ever deal with them again and I make sure to tell others why I won't. This ensures I never get too angry and it sets my expectation of how long to pursue a problem.

In this case do you really want to pursue a year or more of legal action when you could be doing something else with that time? It isn't about right and wrong its simply about whether its genuinely worth it to you. Don't take responsibility to protect others, just ensure you are doing this because that is what thou want to do with your life. If you had other plans for this year there might be value in letting this wrong go and just refusing to deal with Dicks again.

It won't take a year of my life. I've done one other litigation before and it turned out good. Small claims, but no biggie.

As I said, if I accepted their offer of a refund, it would be legally binding. But I am not legally bound to accept the refund. If I don't, then they are still legally bound to provide the product I paid for. Until they do, I'm riding this all the way. I know it won't cost me a dime or even really much time to do so. Everyone posting here has some really twisted misconceptions of how litigations work. I seriously have no idea where they are drawing these conclusions from.

As I said, truthfully if they had provided me with enough in the form of a GC to get an equivalent quality AR15 from one of their stores this would be a non issue for me. Or if they had offered to substitute a completely different AR15 of equal or greater value. That TYPICALLY is what most retailers do in this situation. Last time I did a back order from a store front, I think it was office depot for a printer, that ended up not coming back in stock, they offered either a refund or a substitution of the next model up. I took the next model up with no additional cost to me. But that is not what happened here in the least.

I have no idea how hard it is to litigate or how much trouble it is in the UK, but it is not usually that big of a deal here so long as it is a strong case like mine. And usually for a strong case it rarely ever sees a courtroom when dealing with a business.

Did you get your gun yet?

Now you are just trolling for no reason.

I am willing to bet Dick's legal team knows the law, and the loopholes better than yours I am willing to bet $100 bucks on it too :biggrin:

If that was true then no company would ever have been successfully sued right?

 

[busydude]

That would be for the online store. There are no terms and conditions that are presented to customers when purchasing in the retail store. So trying to equate the two means nothing.

I am not trying to equate them. Online and B&M purchases might be different, but terms and conditions do exist even if they are not presented to you. I am asking you if you can provide any links or documents that show these terms and conditions.

Conditions apply to every transaction you make.. I am just asking for the terms of purchases made in DSG's B&M store.

 

[PhoKingGuy]

Old people with nothing better to do?

 

[HumblePie]

I am not trying to equate them. Online and B&M purchases might be different, but terms and conditions do exist even if they are not presented to you. I am asking you if you can provide any links or documents that show these terms and conditions.

Conditions apply to every transaction you make.. I am just asking for the terms of purchases made in DSG's B&M store.

No, unless they are written or spoken orally to me at the time of the sale. If spoken orally, the store would have to prove it, which would not be hard if they say the same thing to everyone.

But the terms an conditions of a normal sales transaction in a B&M store is the merchant having the item in stock and on display with a price tag. That is the seller's offer. The buyer comes in and either accepts the offer, or tries to haggle for a different offer from the seller (this is known as a counter offer and doesn't usually happen much in retail but it can). The seller can accept a counter offer if made or not. Either way, once all offers are made they are either accepted and a transaction is performed or they are declined. If a transaction is performed, a promise is made by the seller to a performance which is transferring possession of the goods, and the buyer promises a performance of transferring what they agreed for the goods (usually cash). The buyer is notated as the one party that performs their action first in the transaction. IE a person at a store hands their money over first before the seller gives them the product to walk out of the store with. Once all performances are met, the transaction is over. That is a simple sale of which all sales are legally binding contracts.

This was almost a simple sale. The difference is the store while having stock on hand, said they would give me their current stock but would instead deliver unto to product at a later date. That was the same for all customers that ordered before BF and can be proven as a oral agreement given by Dicks. There is no other sale terms and conditions, unless presented at the counter that could apply.

 

[Dari]

OP is so quick to respond to every post. Could you post a copy of the letter you sent to Dick's?

 

[HumblePie]

OP is so quick to respond to every post. Could you post a copy of the letter you sent to Dick's?

At work and don't have it. With it being the holiday season I got nothing really better to do. That will change next week though.

 

[Dari]

At work and don't have it. With it being the holiday season I got nothing really better to do. That will change next week though.

So you will post it by this weekend? I'm assuming you wrote it on a personal computer so you should have a digital copy, right? So long as you remain focused on the strong part of your case and ignore personal attacks, I'm sure you will be doing yourself a favor since someone at Dick's may be reading these posts...

 

[HumblePie]

So you will post it by this weekend? I'm assuming you wrote it on a personal computer so you should have a digital copy, right? So long as you remain focused on the strong part of your case and ignore personal attacks, I'm sure you will be doing yourself a favor since someone at Dick's may be reading these posts...

And why would you want me to post my letter? Sounds fishy to me. As for personal attacks, making insults at trolls in this thread wouldn't have any bearing on a court case.

 

[Dari]

And why would you want me to post my letter? Sounds fishy to me. As for personal attacks, making insults at trolls in this thread wouldn't have any bearing on a court case.

Why not? I'm sure I'm not the only one intrigued by your claims against Dick's. I don't work for them if that is what you're implying. I'm just interested to see if you are really doing the things you claim you're doing. Since you have sent this letter to the company, is there a reason why you would not want to post it here?

 

[abaez]

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.

You accepted your money back, plus the extra cash they offered. How did they force you to do it? You didn't have to but you did. That seems pretty cut and dry.

 

[Phoenix86]

Accepting it would be cashing the check and using the GC.

 

[Regs]

Still no gun?

 

[Regs]

OP is so quick to respond to every post. Could you post a copy of the letter you sent to Dick's?

OP be a good troll.

 

[werepossum]

Man, I am now soooo glad that this Christmas we spent around $400 from Sportsman's Warehouse and squat at Dick's - although had I seen this offer I'd have jumped on it. Not that I have any use for an AR, but for $800 it would be loads of fun to shoot. At the time I was simply too busy to read circulars.

I suspect Dick's will make a better offer because they are looking at it from both sides. Customers whose purchased products were not delivered are obviously irate and highly unlikely to remain customers, and likely there will be a class action lawsuit because if successful Dick's deep pockets will have to cough up attorneys' fees. Troy Defense is going to hit them hard because by selling their carbine so cheaply and then reneging, Dick's both set the price artificially low and instead of buying some brand recognition with Dick's shoppers with its exclusive marketing agreement pricing, Troy Defense instead got no sales, a bunch of bad press, and a major delay in its marketing strategy. No major corporation needs bad press and lingering lawsuits from two different fronts when hungry competitors abound. I also suspect that having alienated one of its primary customer bases on one of its more expensive and more profitable merchandise lines, Dick's will soon be getting out of gun sales altogether.

Personally I'm going to send Dick's my Dick's Rewards card and let them know that out of respect for the Newtown victims I'm no longer doing business with assholes.

 

[RichUK]

Why do you need an AR15 anyway? Isn't that a bit too much gun for civilian use??

Do you need it to play action man in the woods?

 

[shortylickens]

Why do you need an AR15 anyway? Isn't that a bit too much gun for civilian use??

Do you need it to play action man in the woods?

Thats a pretty weak troll.

You should try more of the "think of the children" type stuff. It works better.

 

[RichUK]

Thats a pretty weak troll.

You should try more of the "think of the children" type stuff. It works better.

On a serious note, though, is an AR15 really necessary for the average Joe?

 

[HumblePie]

You accepted your money back, plus the extra cash they offered. How did they force you to do it? You didn't have to but you did. That seems pretty cut and dry.

They sent me a check in the mail without my consent. I have not cashed the check nor used the card. Which means I did not accept their offer.