In Process of Resolving! Thanks everyone!
Registered User
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
From: Plantation, FL
Is it just me or does everyone find that its hard to buy someone from a company when their spokesperson can't even type proper english?
I'm not trying to be rascist or anything and I understand if your english isn't too great, but if you run a business and REALLY want people to buy from you, type professionally.
I'm not trying to be rascist or anything and I understand if your english isn't too great, but if you run a business and REALLY want people to buy from you, type professionally.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 23,128
Likes: 1
From: IM SEXY
Originally Posted by Xistence,Oct 28 2005, 04:30 PM
I'm not trying to be rascist or anything and I understand if your english isn't too great, but if you run a business and REALLY want people to buy from you, type professionally.
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 4,331
Likes: 0
From: Tallahassee, FL
damn dude.....under the Universal Commercial Code (most states have adopted all of it, but you might want to check on oral contracts in your state), if there is an offer made (doesnt need to be in writing) from a VENDOR to a CONSUMER (assuming you were representing yourself in this capacity)....similar laws are Vendor to Vendor (but there are different remedies), unless there is a set termination date, that is considered an open contact, and you may act on it at any time (given that it is a "reasonable" period of time). That contract IS enforceable. I would notify StreetConcept of your intent to enforce this contract (via Certified Mail). If they decline (or refuse) the contract, I would take it to a local attorney. With that Voicemail, it should be an open and shut case with minimal legal costs. If they have some savvy lawyers who decide to drag it out, you can then press for attorney's fees on top of the damages.
This guy screwed you. He (or his manager...the guy that was supposedly "checked with" in the voicemail) made a promise on behalf of his capacity within the company. The company is 100% liable.
That is the BEAUTY of the U.C.C. ......it is UNIFORM from state to state (so even if you are not from CA, you get the same treatment). It was brought about to prevent deals like this from going south....called bait and switch.
I would not bash them anymore (personally....open game for fellow forum members
...because they might be able to claim defamation of character / slander). You cant bash them unless there has been a ruling against them....innocent until proven guilty. The might be able to get lost sales if you say much more. Just watch what you say outside of the courtroom, if it does indeed go to court
John
This guy screwed you. He (or his manager...the guy that was supposedly "checked with" in the voicemail) made a promise on behalf of his capacity within the company. The company is 100% liable.
That is the BEAUTY of the U.C.C. ......it is UNIFORM from state to state (so even if you are not from CA, you get the same treatment). It was brought about to prevent deals like this from going south....called bait and switch.
I would not bash them anymore (personally....open game for fellow forum members
...because they might be able to claim defamation of character / slander). You cant bash them unless there has been a ruling against them....innocent until proven guilty. The might be able to get lost sales if you say much more. Just watch what you say outside of the courtroom, if it does indeed go to courtJohn
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,472
Likes: 1
From: Atlanta
take it to the court man...you got the recording, copy of the price, receipt for the airfare ticket...this seems like an easy and worthy process.
you should get the top at the cost or at least get your lost time (by how much you make an hour) and airfare. good luck
you should get the top at the cost or at least get your lost time (by how much you make an hour) and airfare. good luck
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 4,331
Likes: 0
From: Tallahassee, FL
C4SxM5 - Here is the direct quote from the U.C.C.
"Section 2-201
(1) Except for otherwise provided in this section a contract for sale of goods for the price of $500 or more is NOT enforceable by way of action or defense unless there is some wiriting sufficient to indicate that a contract for sale has been made between parties and signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought or by his agent or broker. A writing is not insufficient because it omits or incorrectly states a term agreed upon but the contract is not enforceable under this paragraph beyond the quantity of good shown in writing."
Later in subsection (3) of this section 2-201 it states the following:
"A contract which does not satisfy the requirements of subsection (1) but which is valid in other respects is enforceable
(a) if the goods are to be specifically manufactured for the buyer and are not suitable for sale to others in the ordinary course of the seller's business and the seller, before notice of repudiation is received and under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the goods are for the buyer, has made either a substantial beginning of their manufacture or commitmets for their procurement" (not applicable to your case)
"(b) if the party against whom enforcement is sought admits in his pleading, testimony, or otherwise in court that a contract for sale was made, but the contract is not enforceable under this provision beyond the quantity of goods admitted;" or
"( C ) with respect to goods for which payment has been made and accepted or which have been received and accepted" (not applicable to your case)
I believe that if this does go to court, the voicemail can be entered into evidence as testimonial to the existence of this contract / offer. Thus it does not have to be in writting. If this is not the case, you are pretty much S.O.L., because the goods are over $500 in value, which under the U.C.C. requires writing for a contract. The onyl other possible remedy would be if the Judge were to rule that there was agreement of the parties with regards to this contract and mutual assent and acceptance. If this is the base, Contract Law (or General K law) takes precedent over U.C.C. Law.
I would consult a lawyer. Give the lawyer the voicemail and this U.C.C. reference (2-201) and ask his opinion. Should be a slam dunk.
Please do not construe any of my advice as legal advice, as I am not a lawyer. (I just have an uncanny knack for the law).
John
"Section 2-201
(1) Except for otherwise provided in this section a contract for sale of goods for the price of $500 or more is NOT enforceable by way of action or defense unless there is some wiriting sufficient to indicate that a contract for sale has been made between parties and signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought or by his agent or broker. A writing is not insufficient because it omits or incorrectly states a term agreed upon but the contract is not enforceable under this paragraph beyond the quantity of good shown in writing."
Later in subsection (3) of this section 2-201 it states the following:
"A contract which does not satisfy the requirements of subsection (1) but which is valid in other respects is enforceable
(a) if the goods are to be specifically manufactured for the buyer and are not suitable for sale to others in the ordinary course of the seller's business and the seller, before notice of repudiation is received and under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the goods are for the buyer, has made either a substantial beginning of their manufacture or commitmets for their procurement" (not applicable to your case)
"(b) if the party against whom enforcement is sought admits in his pleading, testimony, or otherwise in court that a contract for sale was made, but the contract is not enforceable under this provision beyond the quantity of goods admitted;" or
"( C ) with respect to goods for which payment has been made and accepted or which have been received and accepted" (not applicable to your case)
I believe that if this does go to court, the voicemail can be entered into evidence as testimonial to the existence of this contract / offer. Thus it does not have to be in writting. If this is not the case, you are pretty much S.O.L., because the goods are over $500 in value, which under the U.C.C. requires writing for a contract. The onyl other possible remedy would be if the Judge were to rule that there was agreement of the parties with regards to this contract and mutual assent and acceptance. If this is the base, Contract Law (or General K law) takes precedent over U.C.C. Law.
I would consult a lawyer. Give the lawyer the voicemail and this U.C.C. reference (2-201) and ask his opinion. Should be a slam dunk.
Please do not construe any of my advice as legal advice, as I am not a lawyer. (I just have an uncanny knack for the law).
John
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 3,022
Likes: 0
From: 9one6
Thanks for all the advice and support I will be in So. CAL during X-Mas getting my S tuned and will take everyone's advice and at minimal get my travel expenses back from them. Funny thing is that Heru is posting BS in other forums concerning this issue and emailing me totally different responses.
The outcome will be posted and I know of a few good lawyers locally and in Cali since my degree is in Poli. Sci. and most of my classmates went on to Law School.
I will be in So. CAL during X-Mas getting my S tuned and will take everyone's advice and at minimal get my travel expenses back from them. Funny thing is that Heru is posting BS in other forums concerning this issue and emailing me totally different responses. The outcome will be posted and I know of a few good lawyers locally and in Cali since my degree is in Poli. Sci. and most of my classmates went on to Law School.
