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

[maziwanka]

i'd be more interested to see the contractual arrangements dicks had with troy - that's gonna be a bigger thorn in their side.

i dont think any of the 2-3 lawyers on this forum who responded in this thread said anything outrageous about the OP's claims - just that the max we think he's going to get is to cover the cost of buying the gun from a third party (if that); even though the law indicates he can pursue legal fees and punitive damages, given the actions dick's took (refunding the money and giving a GC on top) and the recent gun violence, i doubt he's gonna get either

nothing's black and white in law and this case is far from clear cut; any language indicating it is (even from the OP, which he throws around so easily) is silly

 

[Regs]

In all the other threads on the net about this, the lawyers chiming in say it's an open and shut case. OP isn't the only one, there are tons of threads on firearm sites about this with much more knowledgeable lawyers.

You simply cannot CHOOSE to not fulfill a purchase order/agreement if it is within your control to hold up your end of the transaction. You can't do that. If you could our entire country's business wouldn't work. Ever read a purchase order or sales agreement?

God, I wish I could find a similar case...

 

[HumblePie]

HP: Don't worry too much about it. Simply put: ATOT doesn't have the FULL story and never will. The only thing we can do is make inferences based on what we have.

Only thing right now that matters is that we have a fun thread, some people will be on your side, some will call you a troll. That's all that you can guarantee from something like this. After all, this is the internet. And remember, you invited this upon yourself by posting it in the first place. ATOT isn't exactly designed be user friendly if you know what I mean.

Already knew that. The only reason I posted this was to spread the word on what Dick's had done and to warn other potential consumers that actually might care about their rights. If Dick's does something like this once, they may do it again. Especially if they "get away" with it because no one takes legal action against them. There is a reason that laws like the UCC and DPTA exist. It's because retailers and corporations have specifically done something to break one of these laws in the past and people had to use those laws to fix the situation.

For the most part, the vast majority of my posts in this thread have been nothing but informative and helpful. There were a few posts that I did sink to the level of the trolls and sling some name calling and mud back. I can admit to a certain guilty pleasure from doing so. But flinging names at trolls is like shooting fish in a barrel. Fun a few times, then boring very quickly. Only reason I a still posting in this thread is because it's slow for work for me in this season. If it had been any other time, I may not have been posting as much.

 

[olds]

So it's a clear cut open and shut case? ....

Never said that. I think people are arguing the wrong point.

 

[preslove]

i'd be more interested to see the contractual arrangements dicks had with troy - that's gonna be a bigger thorn in their side.

i dont think any of the 2-3 lawyers on this forum who responded in this thread said anything outrageous about the OP's claims - just that the max we think he's going to get is to cover the cost of buying the gun from a third party (if that); even though the law indicates he can pursue legal fees and punitive damages, given the actions dick's took (refunding the money and giving a GC on top) and the recent gun violence, i doubt he's gonna get either

nothing's black and white in law and this case is far from clear cut; any language indicating it is (even from the OP, which he throws around so easily) is silly

srsly.

Plus, real world law experience means knowing that lawyers make a living by billing clients. OP has spent $950 so far on a $900 transaction. This thread could potentially be the ATOT self pwnage of all time, if he decides to sue and loses.

 

[SunnyD]

Already knew that. The only reason I posted this was to spread the word on what Dick's had done and to warn other potential consumers that actually might care about their rights. If Dick's does something like this once, they may do it again. Especially if they "get away" with it because no one takes legal action against them. There is a reason that laws like the UCC and DPTA exist. It's because retailers and corporations have specifically done something to break one of these laws in the past and people had to use those laws to fix the situation.

Honestly, virtually every retailer is guilty of similar offenses or worse. Repeatedly. The problem with laws like the UCC and DPTA is that those laws require a LAWYER in order to make heads or tails out of them for 99% of the population. (Well, just about any law really)

And then counter to that problem runs the golden rule: He who has the gold makes the rules. Who has the gold? The corporations. Who makes the rules? Generally the corporations are the ones lobbying for specific laws or changes to existing laws to benefit ... corporations. The knockdown effect is that many of the common sense laws that consumers/law people figure to understand do not apply the same way or simply no longer exist. And we're back to needing a LAWYER just to walk into a store and do your shopping again.

I commend you for taking the time to stick to your guns (pun intended), despite my personal opinions on the matter at hand (much ado about nothing). As I said, there are a lot of blanks that we - ATOT - won't be able to fill in until this is all said and done provided you don't go all Goosemaster on us and leave us hanging. We only have one heavily biased side of the story. But thanks for being a trooper and putting up with us. :thumbsup:

 

[HumblePie]

Honestly, virtually every retailer is guilty of similar offenses or worse. Repeatedly. The problem with laws like the UCC and DPTA is that those laws require a LAWYER in order to make heads or tails out of them for 99% of the population. (Well, just about any law really)

And then counter to that problem runs the golden rule: He who has the gold makes the rules. Who has the gold? The corporations. Who makes the rules? Generally the corporations are the ones lobbying for specific laws or changes to existing laws to benefit ... corporations. The knockdown effect is that many of the common sense laws that consumers/law people figure to understand do not apply the same way or simply no longer exist. And we're back to needing a LAWYER just to walk into a store and do your shopping again.

I commend you for taking the time to stick to your guns (pun intended), despite my personal opinions on the matter at hand (much ado about nothing). As I said, there are a lot of blanks that we - ATOT - won't be able to fill in until this is all said and done provided you don't go all Goosemaster on us and leave us hanging. We only have one heavily biased side of the story. But thanks for being a trooper and putting up with us. :thumbsup:

Every single massive thread I made I've stuck with until the very end. You can check my post history on this one. Win or lose, I'll let everyone know the outcome regardless.

 

[diesbudt]

[...]
As for those claiming to be lawyers on the internet. You certainly may be a lawyer, but arguing from a position of authority as if you know everything about this case as a armchair quarterback lawyer is a massive logic fallacy. Any lawyer in this thread claiming they already "know" the outcome is an awful lawyer. Because first rule of litigation is NOTHING is 100% certain. However, I'm fairly confident in my case having a favorable outcome for myself because of the facts and details I know about the case. Is there a small chance I could lose this? Sure, but it's a chance I'm willing to take. Why? Because the odds in heavily in my favor or getting what I want.

To be fair some of us, aka me, are amazing armchair quarterbacks.

I personally led the Green Bay packers to the 11-5 season, from my sofa. Isnt it obvious?

 

[diesbudt]

HP: Don't worry too much about it. Simply put: ATOT doesn't have the FULL story and never will. The only thing we can do is make inferences based on what we have.

Only thing right now that matters is that we have a fun thread, some people will be on your side, some will call you a troll. That's all that you can guarantee from something like this. After all, this is the internet. And remember, you invited this upon yourself by posting it in the first place. ATOT isn't exactly designed be user friendly if you know what I mean.

You will hear fromy lawyer. I am sueing you for infering I do not know everything in the universe, thus it hurt my feelings.

GOOD DAY SIR!

 

[diesbudt]

i'd be more interested to see the contractual arrangements dicks had with troy - that's gonna be a bigger thorn in their side.

Same.

 

[SunnyD]

You will hear fromy lawyer. I am sueing you for infering I do not know everything in the universe, thus it hurt my feelings.

GOOD DAY SIR!

I'm counter-suing. Your suit for mental anguish is giving me mental anguish.

 

[runzwithsizorz]

Originally Posted by maziwanka
"i'd be more interested to see the contractual arrangements dicks had with troy - that's gonna be a bigger thorn in their side."

If Troy can now sell these weapons for a lot more, then it's no skin off their nose if Dicks breaks some sort of arrangement, or contract with them, No??

 

[GagHalfrunt]

If Troy can now sell these weapons for a lot more, then it's no skin off their nose if Dicks breaks some sort of arrangement, or contract with them, No??

Yes, but common sense has no business in this thread. You must scream about mental anguish and quote imaginary lawyers to fit in.

The only way things would get testy between Dick's and Troy is if Dick's got a special price to sell at a given contractual price, received the guns and then sold at a higher price. If Troy never shipped the stock to Dick's or if there wasn't a deal about actual selling price then there's no story and it's still idiots crying like baby with a wet diaper.

 

[preslove]

Yes, but common sense has no business in this thread. You must scream about mental anguish and quote imaginary lawyers to fit in.

The only way things would get testy between Dick's and Troy is if Dick's got a special price to sell at a given contractual price, received the guns and then sold at a higher price. If Troy never shipped the stock to Dick's or if there wasn't a deal about actual selling price then there's no story and it's still idiots crying like baby with a wet diaper.

Yeah.

OP got a $100 gift card for a month long loan to dicks of ~$800. That's about a 12% return that he could have used for a nice pair of shoes. Instead he goes ahead and gets ripped off by some shyster.

LOL

 

[Phoenix86]

rofl. pwn3d.

There are a ton of lawyers who will throw credibility out the window at an attempt to gain some kind of money out of it. Maybe the OP saw a commercial for The Texas Hammer while watching Judge Judy and decided to wrangle him up?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3IhBf1rWx8

I'm sure there are similar commercials in other areas, but he's worth a watch for the laughs if you aren't in Texas and haven't seen his.

 

[Phoenix86]

To be fair some of us, aka me, are amazing armchair quarterbacks.

I personally led the Green Bay packers to the 11-5 season, from my sofa. Isnt it obvious?

:hmm:
Can we trade you to the Cowboys?

 

[Regs]

I just noticed Dicks is a publicly traded company. I think with having major investors threatening to yank the plug who do not want to be involved in gun policy affairs will give them more than enough ammunition to give you the proverbially middle finger.

 

[SunnyD]

I just noticed Dicks is a publicly traded company. I think with having major investors threatening to yank the plug who do no want to be involved in gun policy affairs will give them more than enough ammunition to give you the proverbially middle finger.

Not that I'm on his side, but last I checked the law > investors.

 

[Regs]

Not that I'm on his side, but last I checked the law > investors.

Actually, they go hand in hand. Under the hardship clause of contract, it is there to cover cases in which unforeseen events occur that fundamentally alter the equilibrium of a contract resulting in an excessive burden being placed on one of the parties (buyer or seller) involved. Losing major investors from the unforeseen event of a school shooting is one such hardship. It might also be considered "unconscionable" under UCC laws. Do you really think Dick's sporting goods would normally sell a gun when they knew it would of had detrimental impact on their financial well being before the event took place? This is why they yanked the product before they satisfied anymore requests and actually made their case more self-evident. It would be like you buying a house, and then having your mortgage company deny you the mortgage, and you still being liable for buying the house. This is why buying a house is always on contingency of the buyer securing the financial resources to actually buy the house, since under common law, no "reasonable person" would enter into contract with the intention of buying a house in cash. Contract law is there to protect both the buyer and seller, and now that I've found a reason why the seller should be protected, they have a justifiable case.

It is only a possibility, and Dicks would have to make their case. And as much as I think Humble still doesn't have a pot to piss in with his case, he still has every right to sue.

 

[Regs]

Do you have your gun yet?

 

[diesbudt]

Actually, they go hand in hand. Under the hardship clause of contract, it is there to cover cases in which unforeseen events occur that fundamentally alter the equilibrium of a contract resulting in an excessive burden being placed on one of the parties (buyer or seller) involved. Losing major investors from the unforeseen event of a school shooting is one such hardship. It might also be considered "unconscionable" under UCC laws. Do you really think Dick's sporting goods would normally sell a gun when they knew it would of had detrimental impact on their financial well being before the event took place? This is why they yanked the product before they satisfied anymore requests and actually made their case more self-evident. It would be like you buying a house, and then having your mortgage company deny you the mortgage, and you still being liable for buying the house. This is why buying a house is always on contingency of the buyer securing the financial resources to actually buy the house, since under common law, no "reasonable person" would enter into contract with the intention of buying a house in cash. Contract law is there to protect both the buyer and seller, and now that I've found a reason why the seller should be protected, they have a justifiable case.

It is only a possibility, and Dicks would have to make their case. And as much as I think Humble still doesn't have a pot to piss in with his case, he still has every right to sue.

A few things good to know

1) Real estate contracts/laws is different from "common" sales laws/contracts
2) The buyer has many more lienent ways out of a contractual agreement than the seller.
3) your real estate examples are not the same as the buyer's situation as he did already have the money to pay and did pay them. And Dick's did have the ability to give him the item he ordered. However from what we have been told they chose not to give it to him.
4) Law is always greater than investors. What dick's could have done was not sell anymore assault rifles, but just finish the orders that have already come in.

Yes Dick's did try and reconcile the issue by a refund and a $100 gift card. Which is more than just the refund. However there is a case. Unsure how good of one, but there is a case of a broken agreement.

 

[SP33Demon]

The only reason I posted this was to spread the word on what Dick's had done and to warn other potential consumers that actually might care about their rights. If Dick's does something like this once, they may do it again.

What are you talking about? Dick's can and will do this again, especially since they have the sign behind the counter (when this sign appeared is debatable) that states "orders can be cancelled at any time" at B&Ms to mirror their online policy (all you will get is a full refund, so sorry).

Even if you did win the lawsuit, it would be through a loophole that they didn't have that sign up at your store. So congrats on your loophole victory that will never happen again, if you win. I'd be shocked if Dick's didn't have this loophole legally covered, especially since their online policy is clear. But maybe you'll get lucky and you can brag about the $1750 you loaned for a year (the cost of the gun + retainer) that you did better than earning interest on. Or you may lose it all and continue looking like a douche for trying to exploit a loophole in Dick's policy by going to the B&M vs shopping at the website.

Keep us posted.

 

[Regs]

A few things good to know

1) Real estate contracts/laws is different from "common" sales laws/contracts
2) The buyer has many more lienent ways out of a contractual agreement than the seller.
3) your real estate examples are not the same as the buyer's situation as he did already have the money to pay and did pay them. And Dick's did have the ability to give him the item he ordered. However from what we have been told they chose not to give it to him.
4) Law is always greater than investors. What dick's could have done was not sell anymore assault rifles, but just finish the orders that have already come in.

Yes Dick's did try and reconcile the issue by a refund and a $100 gift card. Which is more than just the refund. However there is a case. Unsure how good of one, but there is a case of a broken agreement.

The real estate example is a loose one at best, but it's the best example I can think of when conditions change so unfavorably for either party that the original intention of the contract can no longer be possibly fulfilled or what the books refer to as Doctrine of Original Intent. This is under Uniform Commerical Code guidelines, not common law, but that does not mean it is strictly enforced by every court since they are just guidelines.

This is not an open and shut case in either regard, and I'm not saying he shouldn't pursue damages for non-performance, but I can see many challenges for him and his lawyer. I don't think Dick's will simply back down on this one, because if they set a precedence by offering him anything more than what he got, they'll be obligated to do the same for all sales they cancelled. This also seems like a moral opinion shift within upper management as well an investor relations nightmare. This is all in my opinion of course (disclaimer), and he can do with it what he pleases.

 

[abaez]

glad I live in Texas where the government looks out for the consumer, and glad you were not a wuss that would take it in the ass and let them do it like 3/4 of the people in this thread.

What exactly was taken in the ass? OP got his money back with $100 on TOP of that. No asses were taken at all in this scenario.

 

[preslove]

What exactly was taken in the ass? OP got his money back with $100 on TOP of that. No asses were taken at all in this scenario.

Srsly. He got a 12% return for losing out on a deal. That's a lot for just a month.