says a random person on the internet that has no idea what they are talking about. and has been shown to have zero idea of what they are talking about repeatedly.
He just let a hack attorney persuade him to pay $950 for a form letter.....
So mental anguish is dead?
if I pursue under DTPA it is. Which doesn't matter because of the punitive damages DTPA allows me to sue for more than makes up for that possible claim. Again, I stated I will go for the maximum allowable if I have to litigate in court. 3 times as punitive on top of damages and legal fees is quite a bit.
OK. So if Dick's climbs down and sells you the gun within the next 60 days, how much are you losing?
OK. So if Dick's climbs down and sells you the gun within the next 60 days, how much are you losing?
says a random person on the internet that has no idea what they are talking about. and has been shown to have zero idea of what they are talking about repeatedly.
Here's the thing - I get paid to practice law, and I certainly won't do it on an internet forum, especially for a blowhard like you.
But think about this - for all your bellyaching, you are now out $50 more than the refund plus the giftcard you got in return from Dick's for canceling your order, and all you have to show for it is a form letter that any 1L could have typed up for you in 20 minutes... that and a completely unfounded sense of righteous indignation.
But I will continue to come back to this thread to laugh at your blustering, and your horrificly erroneous interpretations of contract law. It's like a serialized episode of Judge Judy. I admit, I cannot stay away.
They signed a contract? Was it Dick personally?
But I will continue to come back to this thread to laugh at your blustering, and your horrificly erroneous interpretations of contract law. It's like a serialized episode of Judge Judy. I admit, I cannot stay away.
His take on it (and apparently his lawyer) is that it's not so much contract but consumer law that's been broken. I admit I'm not entirely sure how this all works, but he walked into a store and claims to have purchased an item without receiving said physical item, nor signing a physical contract for purchase of that item nor a bill of sale for that item. The only thing he claims to have is a receipt for said item, and a (verbal?) promise for delivery at some future date.
Again, I'm not a lawyer except in cases of two-year-old tantrums and toy timeouts, but I'm not entirely certain how retail sales ties into contractual obligations and what the rights of the company is when it comes to arbitrarily refunding customers when something is unable* to be delivered.
But this whole thing has been so convoluted that I can't tell the difference now between consumer and contract law at this point, so to hell with it. A new day for a new lol.
Which is what 99% of the people in this thread are missing.Only thing I really want to point out in your post (bolded)
Unable to be delivered is not the same as deciding no longer to deliver it. Hence why a case can be made. Because an agreement was broken. Now will OP win? Who knows. I have seen people win lawsuits that were 100x more outrageous.
Just stating that there is a difference between unable to and chose not to.
Which is what 99% of the people in this thread are missing.
So it's a clear cut open and shut case? Doubtful. Depends on the lawyer(s), depends on the judge and his or her interpretation of the law and his or her view of gun control. There's a reason why good and bad lawyers exist...some schmuck like this who took this case will get destroyed by a big name firm that places like Dicks hire to represent them.
Who knows what contractual clauses Dicks has in place with Troy to cover their butts in cases like this, or for that matter, all their vendors. For all we know, they have an exit clause to sell back unused merchandise back to the original vendor at will, therefore making Dicks unable to deliver/fulfill existing orders. Still doesn't change the fact that the OP is grasping at straws.
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?
Only thing I really want to point out in your post (bolded)
Unable to be delivered is not the same as deciding no longer to deliver it. Hence why a case can be made. Because an agreement was broken. Now will OP win? Who knows. I have seen people win lawsuits that were 100x more outrageous.
Just stating that there is a difference between unable to and chose not to.
There's a reason I put the asterisk there. The onus is now on the OP/lawyer to prove that Dicks chose not to deliver it versus the alternative. All signs are pointing to that, but at this point it really is pure speculation.
So it's a clear cut open and shut case? Doubtful. Depends on the lawyer(s), depends on the judge and his or her interpretation of the law and his or her view of gun control. There's a reason why good and bad lawyers exist...some schmuck like this who took this case will get destroyed by a big name firm that places like Dicks hire to represent them.
Who knows what contractual clauses Dicks has in place with Troy to cover their butts in cases like this, or for that matter, all their vendors. For all we know, they have an exit clause to sell back unused merchandise back to the original vendor at will, therefore making Dicks unable to deliver/fulfill existing orders. Still doesn't change the fact that the OP is grasping at straws.
So it's a clear cut open and shut case? Doubtful. Depends on the lawyer(s), depends on the judge and his or her interpretation of the law and his or her view of gun control. There's a reason why good and bad lawyers exist...some schmuck like this who took this case will get destroyed by a big name firm that places like Dicks hire to represent them.
Who knows what contractual clauses Dicks has in place with Troy to cover their butts in cases like this, or for that matter, all their vendors. For all we know, they have an exit clause to sell back unused merchandise back to the original vendor at will, therefore making Dicks unable to deliver/fulfill existing orders. Still doesn't change the fact that the OP is grasping at straws.
Lawyers chiming in on these are bad lawyers. A good lawyer knows NOT to speak about possible litigation happening ONLINE. Because it can reflect their career if/when proven wrong.
(not saying they are wrong. Just not a good lawyer)