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

[Lifted]

Once in a lifetime because of a possible ban that would prevent me from owning one. The item I was looking to purchase was an EXCLUSIVE. Meaning there isn't a simple way to get it from anywhere else. Your fail comprehension never ceases to amaze.

If it was soooo special why didn't you just drive down to a local store and buy it?

 

[preslove]

Incorrect. Did you not read the letter my lawyer drafted and the articles of the Texas DTPA laws as they pertain to my case? As well as how damages are awarded here under the law. You internet lawyers are a joke if you keep wanting to ignore that bit.

Yeah, I did read it. And reading through it's claims, I think even less of it. The letter lays out each clause, A. through I. that he claims Dicks brok.
http://i.imgur.com/9PHcK.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/QRBzC.jpg

I looked up the law and got the clauses your lawyer claim Dick's breached: http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/SOTWDocs/BC/htm/BC.17.htm

Honestly, I don't see much validity here:

A. Causing confusion or misunderstanding as to the source, sponsorship, approval, or certification of goods or services.
How did they misrepresent the source or certification of the goods? Were these rifles not made by the manufacturer that they advertized?

B. (5) representing that goods or services have sponsorship, approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, or quantities which they do not have or that a person has a sponsorship, approval, status, affiliation, or connection which he does not.

I have no idea how Dick's did this. How did they misrepresent the rifle?

C. (7) representing that goods or services are of a particular standard, quality, or grade, or that goods are of a particular style or model, if they are of another;

Again, they did not misrepresent any of the qualities of the rifle. Why did your lawyer include this? Other than to milk you out of your $950, that is.

D. (9) advertising goods or services with intent not to sell them as advertised;

See that word, 'intent' ? Yeah, Dick's fully intended to supply the rifle when they sold it to you on backorder. Are you actually claiming that Dick's took your money and intended to refund your money with $100 in store credit after a month? LOL

E. (12) representing that an agreement confers or involves rights, remedies, or obligations which it does not have or involve, or which are prohibited by law;

Dick's had an agreement with the manufacturer to sell the guns. They fully intended to sell you the rifle, and could have if they didn't change their minds. I don't see how this claim stands up.

F. (20) representing that a guarantee or warranty confers or involves rights or remedies which it does not have.

I'm not sure what this clause means. Of course, you only know what your shyster has told you, and all the claims above it are bullshit...

G. (10) advertising goods or services with intent not to supply a reasonable expectable public demand, unless the advertisements disclosed a limitation of quantity;

Uh, this one is patently false. They told you it was on backorder when you purchased it and they intended to supply the rifles once they came in. Again, are you really claiming that Dick's sold you the rifle on backorder and didn't intend, at that time, to supply it to you?

H.(24) failing to disclose information concerning goods or services which was known at the time of the transaction if such failure to disclose such information was intended to induce the consumer into a transaction into which the consumer would not have entered had the information been disclosed;

Again, this clause is only concerned with information given at the time of the transaction. They did not intend to deceive you at that time. They just failed to meet their end of the agreement after the fact, due to events that occurred after the transaction. This claim is false on its face.

I: breach of an express or implied warranty 17.46(a)(2).

This one is weird, because there are no numbered clauses in 17.46(a), so the bolded (2) appears to be a typo. 17.46(a) reads:
(a) False, misleading, or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful and are subject to action by the consumer protection division under Sections 17.47, 17.58, 17.60, and 17.61 of this code.

Again, at the time of the transaction, Dick's did not engage in false, misleading, or deceptive practices. Sure, they didn't do what they told you they'd do, but that's because of events that transpired AFTER they sold you the back-ordered gun. They then refunded your money and gave you store credit. They DID NOT KNOWINGLY DECEIVE YOU WHEN THEY SOLD YOU THE RIFLE.



Dude, there is no racket on earth as rigged as the legal system. Dumb clients like you get grifted all the time.The fact of the matter is that you have no way of knowing whether you're getting ripped off by your lawyer, who you practically picked out of the phone book. If you're not an idiot, you'll find a second lawyer and ask them if you have a case, and your actual likelihood of success.

Dick's treated you poorly, but this lawyer is swindling you, you stupid fuck.

 

[preslove]

Once in a lifetime because of a possible ban that would prevent me from owning one. The item I was looking to purchase was an EXCLUSIVE. Meaning there isn't a simple way to get it from anywhere else. Your fail comprehension never ceases to amaze.

Instead of giving $10,000 to a sketchy lawyer, just buy a rifle now, before any ban does go into effect.

 

[HumblePie]

..snip..

Dick's treated you poorly, but this lawyer is swindling you, you stupid fuck.

And you don't know consumer law do you? Here is the problem with Dick's actions and why those all make sense. Dick's actions are what are known as classic "bait & switch" techniques used to draw in people with the intent to sell them more and not the originally advertised product. Much evidence indicates that Dick's never intended to fulfill the orders as they would taking a bigger loss. The fact the sales transaction was completed and then attempted to be canceled forcibly is the bait and switch tactic along with that $100 GC as a bribe to purchase other goods from their store with higher margins. So with that in mind let me explain.

A) They caused confusion to the source of the goods. Which means they said the source of the goods, this case them, would deliver said goods. They did not.

B) In conjunction with A, not showing that the goods were an exclusive that prevented me from obtaining the same item through other means, or by trying to come into the store for their limited stock sale on BF.

C) Same bit as B.

D) Bait and Switch tactic was employed by Dicks. Item was advertised at a heavily discounted loss leader price as shown by Troy Industries. Which is legal to do it limited quantities are stated OR rain checks are offered. By the way rain checks can be canceled, but they sold me the item. There is speculation that Dick's never intended to fulfill these orders and have currently dump all these items at higher prices through other venues since the cancellations.

E) Dick's trying to force a refund without asking as well the GC is breaking this portion.

F) Relates to E.

G) See the explanation to D.

H) See D and B

I) Warranty is the promise to deliver.



But go ahead and continue to insult others like a troll.

Although I will say he should have included 17.46(b)(10) though. Then again it did say not limited.

 

[spidey07]

If it was soooo special why didn't you just drive down to a local store and buy it?

Umm, he DID drive down to a local store and BUY it. Dick's could produce the item he BOUGHT, but CHOOSE not to. They can't do that.

Ever read a purchase order or sales agreement?

Also the rifle was a special configuration made specifically for distribution through Dicks. Manufacturer held up their end of the bargain, Dick's chose, through their own means and control, to not deliver the product purchased and PAID for. You can't do that.

 

[HumblePie]

As for my lawyer, he has been practicing law at his firm for consumer law for over 13 years now and has a 99% win rate for cases he accepts. This according to some fact checking I did on him before I decided to go with him as my lawyer compared to others I looked at and spoke with. He is in good standing with the Texas bar association and has his statutory profile certification a few months ago.

 

[Cerb]

How can it be a "complete sales transaction" if the OP didn't receive the gun?

If he got a sales receipt. Many states have explicit protections for consumers that get IOUs, rainchecks, etc.. Now, if that happened and there was indeed insufficient stock, then oh well. But having stock, promising the item, and refusing it would be another matter, and in this case, a matter not subject to any terms of service, and for which any signed terms, if any, would be superseded by the state's laws.

 

[Cerb]

Speaking of which, when I took those pictures of inside the store in Dick's the sales clerk said they had actually received all the guns to fulfill the order in the store. But were told not to call the customers, like myself, to come pick them up. They had them ready for me to walk in and get and within the 4 weeks. I had my phone on record during that conversation as well and made sure I got his name. So Dick's had the gun, could have delivered within the time frame specified orally by them at the time of the sale, and decided not to deliver.

If that's true, I change my original opinion: sue the shit out of them.

 

[preslove]

And you don't know consumer law do you? Here is the problem with Dick's actions and why those all make sense. Dick's actions are what are known as classic "bait & switch" techniques used to draw in people with the intent to sell them more and not the originally advertised product. Much evidence indicates that Dick's never intended to fulfill the orders as they would taking a bigger loss. The fact the sales transaction was completed and then attempted to be canceled forcibly is the bait and switch tactic along with that $100 GC as a bribe to purchase other goods from their store with higher margins. So with that in mind let me explain.

A) They caused confusion to the source of the goods. Which means they said the source of the goods, this case them, would deliver said goods. They did not.

B) In conjunction with A, not showing that the goods were an exclusive that prevented me from obtaining the same item through other means, or by trying to come into the store for their limited stock sale on BF.

C) Same bit as B.

D) Bait and Switch tactic was employed by Dicks. Item was advertised at a heavily discounted loss leader price as shown by Troy Industries. Which is legal to do it limited quantities are stated OR rain checks are offered. By the way rain checks can be canceled, but they sold me the item. There is speculation that Dick's never intended to fulfill these orders and have currently dump all these items at higher prices through other venues since the cancellations.

E) Dick's trying to force a refund without asking as well the GC is breaking this portion.

F) Relates to E.

G) See the explanation to D.

H) See D and B

I) Warranty is the promise to deliver.



But go ahead and continue to insult others like a troll.

Although I will say he should have included 17.46(b)(10) though. Then again it did say not limited.

The problem with all your lovely logic up there is that Dick's did nothing that you allege before or at the time of your purchase. A significant public event occurred that made Dick's change their policies on gun sales and they stopped selling guns. They then refunded existing orders with store credit on top. That is not deceptive behavior.

This case looks simply like a civil case concerning a broken contract, not a case of deceptive consumer practices.

 

[dabuddha]

So you gonna take me up on my $100 wager HP or not? (since you obviously have this one in the bag lol)

 

[SunnyD]

So you gonna take me up on my $100 wager HP or not? (since you obviously have this one in the bag lol)

Now why would he do that? He's already got one party he's dealing with that has failed to deliver.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Now why would he do that? He's already got one party he's dealing with that has failed to deliver.

If it's a known ending, why does that matter? There's the off chance he'll pay.

 

[dabuddha]

Why wouldn't I pay? Like I've got a rep for stiffing people.

 

[SP33Demon]

Cliffs from this thread, for those who are late arrivals:

1) OP has $15,000 to blow on guns.
2) OP gives money to Dick's for a gun IOU.
3) Gun is not delivered, OP claims to be mentally anguished from not getting it in time.
4) OP could have used that money to actually buy the gun elsewhere and use the receipt as proof that the price actually went up; as a result, he would have suffered an actual monetary loss from Dick's not delivering and having to buy it elsewhere.
5) If #4, OP has gun in hand and gets to use it now, not in x years when his expensive lawsuit receives closure.
6) Instead of #4 and #5, OP will moronically give $10,000 to a lawyer out of the phonebook, risks losing the lawsuit and having no AR-15 in x years. Even if he wins, he still loses the time he could have had an AR-15 in hand.
7) He didn't want the gun that bad in the first place, which is why his claim for mental anguish is akin to an ebola-ridden monkey trying to do math.

 

[yuchai]

Wow..I actually read (almost) the whole thread. I actually think that there are good points presented by both sides of the fence, and the outcome doesn't seem obvious to me. I will follow the thread with interest.

 

[OutHouse]

wow a week with no update, im shocked.

 

[KlokWyze]

Big box store delivering shit customer service!?!?!?!?!?! SURPRISING

 

[Soundmanred]

As for my lawyer, he has been practicing law at his firm for consumer law for over 13 years now and has a 99% win rate for cases he accepts.

Now the term "1%er" has a new meaning.

 

[diesbudt]

wow a week with no update, im shocked.

Probably will not be an update for a while. Dick's has 60 days to respond. Good chance they will wait 55-59 of those days before commenting.

 

[SunnyD]

wow a week with no update, im shocked.

Add 2 more weeks to the pile. Looks like we still have another 5 weeks or so to go.

 

[Genx87]

So is Dicks still being the worst run chain outdoors retailer in the nation? Who in their right mind would stop selling an item that is in high demand? Cabelas and Gander Mountain had to be laughing all the way to the bank on this idiotic decision.

 

[brigden]

Why is this sort of childish entitlement, over-the-top outrage so typical of gun advocates?

That's an honest question; I sit on the fence with regards to "gun issues."

 

[HumblePie]

Why is this sort of childish entitlement, over-the-top outrage so typical of gun advocates?

That's an honest question; I sit on the fence with regards to "gun issues."

Childish entitlement and over the top outrage? Only ones that seem to wear those descriptions are people posting like you.

I'm quite calm and laid back about this whole thing. Dick's made a business deal and tried to pull an illegal move on the deal. I'm calling them to justice on it. Nothing more and nothing less. It is neither entitlement nor outrage.

Be glad for people like me, because if people like me didn't stand up for our rights and the laws then things would be worse off for those of you whom are normally sheep of the world.

Market watch shows they had some dips and backlash in December and January, but has normalized for now. We'll see if that trend continues.

 

[Yourself]

So those of us who value our time and money more than crusading are sheep?

 

[purbeast0]

oh man i forgot about this thread!

humblepie does not sound very humble.