OverVolt
Lifer
- Aug 31, 2002
- 14,278
- 89
- 91
Even if he wins the lawsuit it isn't worth the time. If it were me anyway.
The point then is to "win" to validate that some kind of injustice had been done.
But his pre-order is a bit like a futures contract that can be backed out of by one party (Dicks). Dicks decided to exercise their right to resell the Troy gun later, at a higher price. Good for them. I would do the same thing if I had a warehouse full of AR-15's worth 2x what I paid for them.
The slickdeals types are really upset about their deal falling through. It is cheaper for dicks to take orders with no inventory and THEN order the AR15's than it is for dicks to order the inventory and wait for people to buy them. That is one reason the AR-15 was so much cheaper than anywhere else.
There are drawbacks to the whole "cheapest deal at all cost" mentality, if you had spent a couple bucks extra to buy it in person you'd have it in your hands right now. Mail-ordering =/= in your hands. Promises can be broken, just a fact of life. This is where the entitlement crowd comes in where it just blows their freaking mind that a promise about something in the future might not work out because the future is unpredictable. In this case a huge panic buying spree of AR-15's.
OP's mind = blown. It was never in your hands, you never owned the AR-15. Only a promise from dicks that it would be delivered to you. It was in their best interest to just warehouse the gun delivery. SOL. No matter if you win the lawsuit or not Dicks will be laughing alllll the way to the bank by reselling those Troy AR15's.
Slickdeals backfire, mind = blown, promises in the future are never 100%. Get over it.
You are SUPPOSED to learn a lesson from this, about how to manage expectations about future promises. Instead you procrastinate on that and throw a hissy lawsuit fit. Good luck but Dicks already won no matter what you do. Want to know why? Because they had possession of the AR-15's. Learn that lesson. LEARN IT. Sheesh. It isn't yours, unless it is in your hands. When the Troy AR-15's arrived at the Dicks warehouse, now worth 2x what they paid for them, who owned them? Dicks did. SOL bud.
The point then is to "win" to validate that some kind of injustice had been done.
But his pre-order is a bit like a futures contract that can be backed out of by one party (Dicks). Dicks decided to exercise their right to resell the Troy gun later, at a higher price. Good for them. I would do the same thing if I had a warehouse full of AR-15's worth 2x what I paid for them.
The slickdeals types are really upset about their deal falling through. It is cheaper for dicks to take orders with no inventory and THEN order the AR15's than it is for dicks to order the inventory and wait for people to buy them. That is one reason the AR-15 was so much cheaper than anywhere else.
There are drawbacks to the whole "cheapest deal at all cost" mentality, if you had spent a couple bucks extra to buy it in person you'd have it in your hands right now. Mail-ordering =/= in your hands. Promises can be broken, just a fact of life. This is where the entitlement crowd comes in where it just blows their freaking mind that a promise about something in the future might not work out because the future is unpredictable. In this case a huge panic buying spree of AR-15's.
OP's mind = blown. It was never in your hands, you never owned the AR-15. Only a promise from dicks that it would be delivered to you. It was in their best interest to just warehouse the gun delivery. SOL. No matter if you win the lawsuit or not Dicks will be laughing alllll the way to the bank by reselling those Troy AR15's.
Slickdeals backfire, mind = blown, promises in the future are never 100%. Get over it.
You are SUPPOSED to learn a lesson from this, about how to manage expectations about future promises. Instead you procrastinate on that and throw a hissy lawsuit fit. Good luck but Dicks already won no matter what you do. Want to know why? Because they had possession of the AR-15's. Learn that lesson. LEARN IT. Sheesh. It isn't yours, unless it is in your hands. When the Troy AR-15's arrived at the Dicks warehouse, now worth 2x what they paid for them, who owned them? Dicks did. SOL bud.
Last edited:
- Oct 30, 2000
- 14,665
- 440
- 126
Well, just got back from actually speaking with my lawyer and handing over my narrative and copies of my documents. He said we'll be filing this under Texas's DTPA (deceptive trade practices act) as it provide much greater consumer protections than the UCC. On top of that, the DTPA says those that breach the contract MUST pay attorney and legal fees as damages.
He's drafting the DTPA demand letter and I should have a copy he is making by Friday. He basically stated we are going to demand that Dick's either completes their performance as per the contractual obligation which is to provide the original item to me, or provide me with an substitute comparative item of equal/greater value, or provide me with damages of $2000 on top of the refund so that I may make a purchase elsewhere. That will in addition to any attorney or legal fees I have to pay out of pocket which includes the $950 retainer.
The lawyer stated they have 60 days to comply to the demand. If they fail or refuse to accept the offer, then we take them to court. At which point the DTPA of Texas allows me to seek damages that are at the time the litigation is filed + 3 times that. So if in 60 days the price of the gun to purchase is now $4000 instead of $2000, then Dick's is required to pay me $4000 + $12,000 in punitive damages under DTPA. Also included would be all attorney and legal fees on top of those awards.
Link to the DTPA
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/SOTWDocs/BC/htm/BC.17.htm
My lawyer says because of Texas DPTA that I have a very strong case for this. So now it's wait and see what Dick's is going to do on this.
He's drafting the DTPA demand letter and I should have a copy he is making by Friday. He basically stated we are going to demand that Dick's either completes their performance as per the contractual obligation which is to provide the original item to me, or provide me with an substitute comparative item of equal/greater value, or provide me with damages of $2000 on top of the refund so that I may make a purchase elsewhere. That will in addition to any attorney or legal fees I have to pay out of pocket which includes the $950 retainer.
The lawyer stated they have 60 days to comply to the demand. If they fail or refuse to accept the offer, then we take them to court. At which point the DTPA of Texas allows me to seek damages that are at the time the litigation is filed + 3 times that. So if in 60 days the price of the gun to purchase is now $4000 instead of $2000, then Dick's is required to pay me $4000 + $12,000 in punitive damages under DTPA. Also included would be all attorney and legal fees on top of those awards.
Link to the DTPA
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/SOTWDocs/BC/htm/BC.17.htm
My lawyer says because of Texas DPTA that I have a very strong case for this. So now it's wait and see what Dick's is going to do on this.
Last edited:
- Oct 30, 2000
- 14,665
- 440
- 126
incorrect, look at the potential I will get through DTPA of Texas for winning. Well worth my time.
SunnyD
Belgian Waffler
- Oct 30, 2000
- 14,665
- 440
- 126
Pics of what? and be known I'm hesitant to even respond to you as you were one of the first offenders in this entire thread that start flaming and name calling without provocation. Post 27 of yours to come out the gate declaring me a dickhead for standing up for my rights under the law doesn't exactly endear you to me.
SunnyD
Belgian Waffler
Receipts, documents, checks, gift cards, lawyers, lawyer's wife (or lesbian lover), draft letters, etc.
Obviously I can understand since these items would be considered material to any pending litigation that they should not be presented to the internet community at large, so they could be heavily redacted mind you (aside from the lawyer (if female)/lawyer's wife/lesbian lover of course).
You know... those sorts of things.
Or anything otherwise you deem relevant. After all, it looks like we're going to have approximately ~60 more days to waste on this thread now. :\
(And yes, you're still a dickhead... since your first mistake was obviously shopping at Dicks. See what I did there?)
Last edited:
- Oct 30, 2000
- 14,665
- 440
- 126
If that's all I get then that's all I get. Was it more hassle than it should have been for an order with an expected delivery? Yep. But with the current political climate and the way gun sales have been stupid lately, it may be a very long time before I am able to purchase another comparative AR15, and at a reasonable price. So with that as a future prospect, it may even be a bigger hassle to not do what I'm doing now to obtain the item I want.
The only other choice I had was to wait outside a store for hours on end, miss a lot of sleep, and hope I was got to the gun counter fast enough to purchase 1 of the only 6 they had in stock at every store for the BF event. Which means if I couldn't get one in stock then, I would have to placed an order that day like I did not as WELL as gone through the hassle of losing sleep and standing forever in a line. As well as missing work since I had to work that day.
Last edited:
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.
SunnyD
Belgian Waffler
Okay, I'm going to ask this is a mostly serious manner... WHY?
I of course expect "why not?" as the reply. But honestly, what functional purpose does this particular item (AR15) serve that another model of equivalent caliber firearm doesn't?
I ask this from the mindset of a person looking at a gun as a gun... a tool designed to do something (shoot at things).
Is this simply a case of "because"? Or is there a legitimate differential case between this particular item (AR15) and other equivalent caliber rifles? And no, you may NOT use "because it is/will be a commodity/collector's item due to its now dubious legal status" as a basis for your argument.
*Again, my disclaimer: I am neither pro/anti-gun. They are legitimate tools that have legitimate uses, and that is where I will end my personal stance on gun control.
Brigandier
Diamond Member
- Feb 12, 2008
- 4,394
- 2
- 81
- Oct 30, 2000
- 14,665
- 440
- 126
Well as for the gun itself. It was a Troy exclusive. It is a mil-spec billeted all aluminum gun. Not some polymer/plastic toy. It comes with several Troy Industry AR15 upgrades for which Troy is known for, already included in the gun. The cost of the upgrades separately almost equals the price of the gun. Most people go out and buy a halfway decent AR15, like a Colt, for $1200 and then spend another $800 on upgrades or so like these Troy Industry items. Making it a $2000 gun. I wanted this gun because even at the normal retail price of $1099, it was a good deal. At $799 it was a stellar deal. It is also a good platform for further accessories if I wanted them.
To reiterate what I posted before, an AR15 is designed to be a home defense rifle. It can be used in hunting and such, but would not be great for bigger game, and is overkill for smaller game. Home defense is where it excels at in its design. Since I'm more proficient at using rifles instead of shotguns, it was the most logical choice as a purchase.
Last edited:
SunnyD
Belgian Waffler
Okay, so economics of the deal plus quality came into play. Very good - I can completely understand and agree with getting a good deal.
As far as the usage considerations, granted I have no practical experience with firearms in general, but it seems to me a rifle of any sort would be fairly impractical for the purposes of home defense... unless your home happens to be a fortified bunker where you're perched on the roof behind sandbags and razor wire able to pick off intruders in your front yard. Especially when speaking of "accessories".
In terms of CQC, I think something more concealable, mobile, agile and most importantly accessible such as a pistol seems like a much better option for home defense in my opinion.
Anyway, thanks for the rational explanation. It actually gives me a pretty good idea of why Dicks did what they did - using the political situation as an excuse to cancel the sales, pull the guns and (if the info from ar15.com is actually valid) resell them at a greater profit than what they would have gotten from customers, even taking into account the gift cards.
If that's the case, I'm actually with you on a buyers' rights standpoint.
I'd still like some pics of hot lawyer woman stuff though.
fwiw Dick's never claimed the political situation was the reason for cancelling the sales.
For fun, budsgunshop has an AR in stock:
http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/product_info.php/cPath/36_60/products_id/69657
Only $2k markup...
- Oct 30, 2000
- 14,665
- 440
- 126
Actually, for home defense a pistol is one of the worst firearms to use. Unlike a typical self defense scenario in the street, you are more likely to deal with more than 1 or 2 people invading your home. Also, a pistol platform is always less accurate than a shotgun or rifle. As for home defense, you always have the element of surprise IF you know they are in the house first. It is always considered a very bad idea to "sweep" your home clear of bad guys. It's a much better idea to find a hiding spot, call the cops, and keep the gun trained on the door and ready to fire the moment anything comes through that door without identifying itself first. A rifle or shotgun is far more ideal in that scenario than a pistol.
There are TONS of topics on this and those from experts in the field. You ask any firearm expert on home defense and they'll tell you to use a rifle or a shotgun if you can do so. And between a shotgun or rifle, go with the one that is more comfortable to use for you as a person.
And uh... why would I have pics of my lawyer's wife?
SunnyD
Belgian Waffler
No, they said it was in response to Newtown. Which is, in essence, a political action.
:sneaky:
- Oct 30, 2000
- 14,665
- 440
- 126
Dick's made a public announcement that because of the Sandy Hook shooting, they were no longer going to sell AR15 rifles and were going to pull all current stock off the shelves. That can be reasonable evidence to prove that the breach of contract occurred because of political posturing. Especially in light of the fact that Troy Industries said they were still producing the firearms to cover all the orders. Which means that Dick's choice to break the contracts is considered Unconscionable by law. Hence why I can litigate for damages under the DTPA for Texas.
SunnyD
Belgian Waffler
- Oct 30, 2000
- 14,665
- 440
- 126
Yep. Just google Dick's Sandy Hook.
http://www.latimes.com/business/mon...s-cabelas-bushmaster-20121218,0,7553838.story
Here is one news article link talking about Dick's political decision. There are a ton of articles out there about it.
I was just referring to the specific cancellation of this already sold rifle. As far as I saw the only comment in the letter was:
cheezy321
Diamond Member
- Dec 31, 2003
- 6,218
- 2
- 0
TheAdvocate
Platinum Member
- Mar 7, 2005
- 2,561
- 7
- 81
He just let a hack attorney persuade him to pay $950 for a form letter.....
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 388
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter