I still can't believe how many anti-gun idiots there are in this thread.
HumblePie,
I'm sorry you are having to deal first with this bullshit from Dick's, and now with this endless procession of dicks in your thread piling on like a swarm of buzzards, trying to each outdo one another with their "pwnage" - and some have the audacity to call you childlike?
You're right on the money in your feeling that a lot of this is anti-gun nuts busting your balls because of specifically what your purchase item was. If it was a camping tent, several of them would be much more sympathetic to your situation. I'm not saying I think those people would be on board for a lawsuit... but they wouldn't be busting your balls in this way. Many more beyond those, would simply have not responded at all. Of this, I have no doubt.
I have no idea at all how your legal avenue will play out. Maybe it will fizzle and maybe you will end up regretting putting the effort into it. However, regardless of how it goes I admire you standing up for what is right, and what the law and your contract with them for the sale dictate. If there is not a class action going, perhaps you are the right person to get that ball rolling?
You are standing up, in your own small way, against the forces of irrationality. The same forces of irrationality that lead people to knee jerk into trying to ban these weapons because some lone crazy did something horrible.
Perhaps your cause is ill-fated, but I would rather stand with you, the law, and what is right... than with the forces of emotion, knee jerk, and irrationality.
I wish you the best of luck, in your legal proceedings, and in dealing with these fuckers in the thread.
You are right that some of the responses are dog-pile messageboard reactions, but I think most people are taking issue with his claim of "mental anguish." IMO, that's where the thread jumped the shark and most sympathy went out the window. I respect the right to own an AR15, and I am as big a proponent of consumer rights as anyone. But if this case really caused the OP "mental anguish," then I would love to have lived the cakewalk that has been his life up till this point. I cannot believe he truly believes he deserves punitive damage compensation for this. And if he does truly believe it, then he's just part of all that's fucked up with the legal system today. Claiming something like this caused "mental anguish" only dilutes the significance of that word. And we wonder why people call 911 when BK is out of french fries.
OP you got your money back, plus $100 on top of it. The most I would ever give you on top of that is compensation for lost wages for the 4 hours you would have waited in line. Except you didn't wait in line. Dick's may have handled the decision poorly post-Newton, but you can't blame them for that. Have some grace.
Oh come on throw in your 2 cents, I'm curious.I encourage OP to file the case...I'm curious to see the end result.
Dude, how many times have we gotten cancellation emails because there was a pricing error or they exceeded the promotional price? It's not rare at all.
Actually no.
By contract law, they are bound to fulfill the order. So if I'm am forced to go elsewhere to buy the item, they are required to pay the difference in cost, time, and a bit of punitive damages.
And you see the point of severe disappointment there? Which a gift for the holiday season under which the terms of the purchase was suppose to be for fit. I understand the law just fine thanks for highlighting it even further.
Did you miss this part of the prior post?
"Texas allows recovery of mental anguish without physical injury ONLY in the following circumstances: 1) bystander cases; 2) intentional tort – child abduction; 3) defamation; 4) invasion of privacy; 5) telegraph co. failing to deliver a death message in a timely manner (from the old days – still a law though); 6) handling a corpse negligently."
Sorry, but I don't see breach of contract in that description.
Assuming that this is not just one giant troll post, you are probably right in that you likely have a contract with Dicks for purchase of the gun. The question is whether or not it makes sense to sue them to enforce the agreement. Given the very small amount of money involved, my 2 cents is that it is not, at least not unless you were competent to handle the case yourself. Can;t see why an attorney would take it on unless he/she was being paid hourly, as the recovery (for a contingency agreement) is likely to be exceedingly small.
Actually, they could fulfill the order, they chose not to. I doubt that matters from a legal point of view but it's a minor correction/difference.You walked out of the store with an IOU. They couldn't fulfill it, so gave back your money, and gave you some store credit for your trouble, since you were stuck waiting.
It's a legitimate complaint.read the OP and rolled my eyes
Dick's never had the "gold". They took orders for thousands of rifles and expected the market to remain stable for the foreseeable future. Instead we got a perfect storm of shootings/politics/apocalypse that sparked never-before-seen panic buying.It's a legitimate complaint.
Let's say this was a purchase for gold.
1 oz at $1500 deliverable in 4 weeks. Paid in cash.
Price of gold triples in that time.
Seller refuses sale, has the gold, but refunds money instead.
It's a legitimate complaint.
Let's say this was a purchase for gold.
1 oz at $1500 deliverable in 4 weeks. Paid in cash.
Price of gold triples in that time.
Seller refuses sale, has the gold, but refunds money instead.
Methinks people are just looking at this as a "gun" thread, I'd bet more than half the people flamming the OP are anti-gun and just parroting. OP is obviously going overboard with his "mental anguish" BS (that alone deserves some ridicule).
The item itself is really, really moot.
You have an interesting sense of contract law and legal damages.
Edit: Saw later that this issue occured in Texas, which has not adopted article 2 of the UCC. So, ignore the above.
Basic Benefit of the Bargain Damages: When a plaintiff sues for damages from a breach of a contract, the general rule is that an amount may be awarded that will put the plaintiff "in as good a position as if the defendant had performed" on the contract. R. G. McClung Cotton Co. v. Cotton Concentration Co., 479 S.W.2d 733, 738 (Tex.Civ.App. Dallas 1972, writ ref'd n.r.e.).
Goods: For example, if a buyer fails to pay for the goods, the seller can sue for the agreed contract price, even if that is higher than the market price. If a seller of goods refuses to sell at the agreed price, the buyer may purchase substitute goods and recover the difference between the cost of the substitute and the contract price.
They said the rifles were due in soon, implying it was being shipped to stores/warehouse. They were told to pull stock, implying they had stock to fulfill the orders.Dick's never had the "gold". They took orders for thousands of rifles and expected the market to remain stable for the foreseeable future. Instead we got a perfect storm of shootings/politics/apocalypse that sparked never-before-seen panic buying.
Perhaps you're right, I thought he pulled the mental anguish card much later in the thread.I'm pretty sure most people are treating it that way, it doesn't matter what the item is. He's being a ridiculous whiny idiot about it.
Perhaps you're right, I thought he pulled the mental anguish card much later in the thread.
Just file the damn lawsuit. Let us know when you lose it. Or not since you'd never post the result.
this wasn't a pricing error. and besides, all the pricing errors are quite obvious. a $600 video card for $6? no duh it's wrong. i also imagine they have fine print somewhere that says "if we screw up we're allowed to cancel your order"
this was not the case. there was no error in the advertised price - many rifles had been sold to customers previously at the agreed upon price, including pre-orders. therefore, no error occurred.