On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 21:21:12 -0800, wrote:

On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 00:15:43 -0500, mm wrote:

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 17:19:55 -0800, wrote:

On 13 Feb 2007 17:09:16 -0800, wrote:

It's not up to HD to decide to switch models on a buyer and send
something else. If he ordered one model and they wanted to sub
something else when he replaced the order they have to ask if a
different model is acceptable.

They don't do that. They don't put things on hold.

Well excuse me. It would require all of a few mins to look up the
customers number and ask them if the sub is acceptable.

Nonsense.
In this day and age even catching a customer at home is difficult and leaving
callback messages is a huge PITA for stores.

Most customers would want to see the new machine first. Retail stores NEVER phone
about subs. These decisions are based on psychology. Customers are far less likely to
reject a sub once it's on their doorstep.

So you say they are trying to manipulate him into taking something he
wouldn't want if it weren't already there. Well that's a risk they
are taking and when he doesn't want it even after it is t here, HD
should make good, even if they have to pick up the bad machine and
even if they also lose the sale because they no longer have what he
wants.

He didn't put the order on hold. He cancelled the order, but then
then he allowed them to reproduce it by finding the previous order
slip**. If they didn't have what was on t hat order slip, they should
have told him. **How often does that happen? When they do reproduce
nad order, and the they can't fulfill the order, they should call him.

Now there might be things he hasn't said that change things, but based
on what we're discussing, he's right.

He's only right if the store did something NOT stated in it's policies.

Again you are not a slave to their policies if their policies are
contradicted by the law. For example, they can't have an enforceable
policy that says their products don't have a warranty of
merchantability or fitness for use.

People who think they are subject to policies of stores that are
contradicted by the law frequently tolerate things that the law
doesn't require them to tolerate.

If they deliver a tv, a portable which requires no installation, and
you sign for it before you turn it on, and it doesn't work, they have
to take it back and replace it with a good one or give you your money
back. They can't enforce a policy which says, We're not responsible
for appliances that don't work. Because the law overrides such a
policy.

If they do have a policy about substitutions, it is probably written
carefully so that it doesn't actually apply here, but whoever the OP
called wanted it to apply. Or it is ambiguous because it is in fact
very hard to write a policy that foresees every situation (although
this one seems forseeable). But my point is that I'm not claiming
they intentinoally wrote a terrible policy like "not responsible for
appliances that don't work." I expect their policy is reasonable and
fair, but either clear or ambiguous as applied here and either
way,doesn't apply in this case though someone thinks it does.

It is the customers obligation to know return polices BEFORE they buy.

And it is the store's obligation to know what the law is BEFORE they
sell.

If they know it and intend to abide by it, they won't have so many
problems with customers who also know the law. Although if they don't
intend to abide by it, or they just can't manage to unless they are
forced, they will get over on customers who don't know the law and who
don't complain.