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.