On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 13:29:33 -0800, wrote:

On 13 Feb 2007 13:21:50 -0800, wrote:


wrote:
On 13 Feb 2007 12:45:55 -0800, wrote:


wrote:
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 15:17:13 -0500, "Zephyr" Someguy@an email address.com wrote:

perhaps they were less than charitable based on your on again off again
ordering status.
maybe they would have been more willing to work with you if you hadn't had
the previous history...?

When I had my reno business I learned that companies substituting was bad news when I
had a customer of my own to please. I started writing NO SUBSTITUTIONS on the orders
and I still do.


Somehow I think there is more to this story. What model number is
called out on the order and what is the model number actually
received? Did you use it before telling them you wanted to send it
back?

The way I see he placed the order then canceled it only later to renew it. In the
mean time Home Depot had probably switched to a different model of machine.
It was his fault to not ask if the model was still available at the time he renewed
the order.



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. If the order arrives at the
warehouse and the stock is gone they sub with the replacement, if them deem it equal
or better..
To delay the order waiting for the customer to ok the sub would **** off more
customers than it would please.

OK, but then they take a risk for the ones that they ship the wrong
thing too. They still should make good, and they should calculate the
price of making good along with the savings of not asking first for
those who *are* satisfied.

They ask now for home phone and work phone, and everyone has an
answering service of some sort. So it should only add another day at
most. If they answer the phone it might only add another hour, which
will sometimes mean anothr day.

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.

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 10:16:02 -0800, wrote:

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 05:51:04 GMT, AZ Nomad wrote:

Call backs FROM customers are a HUGE pain in the ass. If you had ever worked for a
huge business you would understand why. Staff don't work 24/7.

Oh puleeze. Just mention your hours of operation and give a phone number
when you leave the message. You don't have to work 24x7 in order to make
it possible for a return call.

So another 3 day delay waiting for the staff member to return from days off. Then you
expect the staffer to wait for the call AT their computer so they can call up the
customers order. If they miss the return call they get yet another opportunity to
leave ANOTHER message on the customers answering machine. It's called phone tag and
it costs big companies MILLIONS.
They hate it.

Who gives a damn what they hate. They chose to go into business.
They can't use inconvencence of their hates to to justify palming off
something that the customer didn't order.

That why they have a substitution policy...
It's up to the customer to educate themselves about the companies they wish to deal
with. At the very least educate yourself about their RETURNS policies.

They didn't deliver what was ordered. The law covers that and
supercedes their self-centered return policy.

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 11:02:49 -0800, wrote:

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 18:34:12 GMT, AZ Nomad wrote:

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 10:16:02 -0800, wrote:


On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 05:51:04 GMT, AZ Nomad wrote:

Call backs FROM customers are a HUGE pain in the ass. If you had ever worked for a
huge business you would understand why. Staff don't work 24/7.

Oh puleeze. Just mention your hours of operation and give a phone number
when you leave the message. You don't have to work 24x7 in order to make
it possible for a return call.

So another 3 day delay waiting for the staff member to return from days off. Then you
expect the staffer to wait for the call AT their computer so they can call up the
customers order. If they miss the return call they get yet another opportunity to
leave ANOTHER message on the customers answering machine. It's called phone tag and
it costs big companies MILLIONS.

Then don't deliver the substitution.

I notice you sniped the most relevant part of my post so you could make this silly
post. If you dislike a companies policies DON"T shop there. It's up to YOU, the

He didn't know he didn't like it until now.

customer, to educate yourself about those policies.

Their policies are superceded by the law.

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 13:02:29 -0800, wrote:

On 13 Feb 2007 12:45:55 -0800, wrote:


wrote:
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 15:17:13 -0500, "Zephyr" Someguy@an email address.com wrote:

perhaps they were less than charitable based on your on again off again
ordering status.
maybe they would have been more willing to work with you if you hadn't had
the previous history...?

When I had my reno business I learned that companies substituting was bad news when I
had a customer of my own to please. I started writing NO SUBSTITUTIONS on the orders
and I still do.


Somehow I think there is more to this story. What model number is
called out on the order and what is the model number actually
received? Did you use it before telling them you wanted to send it
back?

The way I see he placed the order then canceled it only later to renew it. In the
mean time Home Depot had probably switched to a different model of machine.
It was his fault to not ask if the model was still available at the time he renewed
the order.

He either did or didn't have to, because he said he was assured they
had the same features.

It doesn't say how long after the machine was delivered that he
complained. I'm not sure how long could be considered too long. But
we also have no evidence he waited more than an hour.

Besides the lacking delicate cycle, what are all the other
"multitude" of features that are different?

I've always had no problems when dealing with HD. Last year I
special ordered a $450 Kohler cast iron kitchen sink. After getting
it home and actually setting it in the opening, I noticed small spider
web like cracks in one corner. It seemed it could have been from
maybe cooling too rapidly after baking, or similar. Didn't look like
a chip, but I was still worried that HD might say I damaged it.
Just took it back and they took care of it, no questions, no problems,
they just ordered up another one.

If they sent a model that is different than the one you bought, then
I'm amazed they would even argue it.








"ebayer" wrote in message
oups.com...
I went to home depot on 1/23/2007 and purchased a Maytag Washing
Machine.When I got home my old Maytag started to work again.
I went back and cancelled the order.
On 2/9/2007 it died so I went back to Home Depot.
I had them look up my purchase and they reissued the the Item.


Today 2/13-2007 it was received but little did I notice that
they substituted with a different model that they assure me is the
same.


It is not the same and has no delicate wash plus a multitude of
other amenities.

I went back to the store and was told since I did not refuse it on
delivery it now is not returnable.


Their manager said to be basically tough luck
I called corporate and was told basically buyer beware or Home Depot
will screw you.

Never again Home depot

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 03:29:19 GMT, wrote:


Only if you don't have a cell phone and don't have an answering machine
or voice mail. That pretty much rules out everybody with the ability
to afford a new washing machine.
No it doesn't. Not everyone has, or wants, those damn things. Some of us
either don't like to be findable, or simply have nobody that calls, so never
bothered to get connected. And as to washers- I hauled mine home from Sam's
and installed it my own damn self, thank you.

But having said that- The driver should have been given instructions to get
specific customer permission before they took the substitute off the truck,
if the manager hadn't succeeded in getting verbal permission over the phone.

Good point. And maybe they could charge for the extra unproductive
delivery if the buyer made it so hard to reach him as you have.

aem sends...

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 12:37:35 -0600, Mark Lloyd
wrote:


When I bought a washer and dryer last year, I specifically chose a
smaller appliance store that had been here a long time. That was
definitely NOT Home Depot. This place (Western Auto) has salespeople
who actually knew about washers and dryers.

I bought one there and it mounted in my dashboard.

BTW, that did matter when the dryer quit heating 5 weeks later. They
sent someone out that day.

Couldn't they just connect it to the car's heater?

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 21:28:36 -0800, wrote:


That why they have a substitution policy...
It's up to the customer to educate themselves about the companies they wish to deal
with. At the very least educate yourself about their RETURNS policies.

They didn't deliver what was ordered. The law covers that and
supercedes their self-centered return policy.

Nonsense. If a store has a policy that states they sub and the customers has an
obligation to REFUSE delivery if they don't want the item that is well within the
law.

The law is not a jackass. It recognizes the reality of situations.

One can't reject a substitution by looking at the crate. And if the
truck driver opened the crate and installed the washer, and the
customer called to say it's not a valid substitution, within a
reasonable time, he will win in court. Assuming the rest of the
facts are pretty much like he said, and you're not saying they're not.

I don't what the law says about charging him a (second, I think)
delivery charge for having to come and pick up the washer to remove
it. If he had rejected it immediately, they could have taken it with
them, but otoh, the whole problem flows out of their sending a
substitute which the manager told him had the same features as the one
he ordered. It didn't. It was the store's mistake, and he's not going
to have to pay for or keep the washer. Although he will have to keep
it in the same condition as when delivered.

I'm not at all sure they can't recrate it. If the original crate is
ruined or thrown away, they can be careful with the next washer and
preserve that crate and use it. But if the washer is now a
"demonstator" or floor model, and they lose money on it, it all flows
out of hte store's mistake.

While people have the image that the law very often causes injustices,
and that people have to be perfect in their behaviour, the only
sometimes causes injustices, and people don't have to be perfect.
They often just have to be more right than the other side.

There used to be courts of law and courts of equity. (There used to
be "attorneys at law" and "attorneys at equity".) They were merged a
couple hundred years ago, more or less, and all civil courts are
supposed to do equity in places and cases where equity is appropriate.
Equity is basically equivalent to fairness. The law is not a jackass.

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.

On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 00:19:04 -0500, mm wrote:


On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 11:02:49 -0800, wrote:

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 18:34:12 GMT, AZ Nomad wrote:
Then don't deliver the substitution.

I notice you sniped the most relevant part of my post so you could make this silly
post. If you dislike a companies policies DON"T shop there. It's up to YOU, the
I left enough for context. Quit whining.


He didn't know he didn't like it until now.
he ****ed up.


customer, to educate yourself about those policies.

Their policies are superceded by the law.

You jerk them around, then complain when they do something wrong and
you forget to backcheck on time? Correct?

A second answer to another post, followed by an answer to this post:

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 21:29:21 -0800, wrote:

On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 00:19:04 -0500, mm wrote:

customer, to educate yourself about those policies.

Their policies are superceded by the law.

Nope. No such law.

You're right there is no such law that says a store can't make
substitutions.

There are innumerable situations, and more created every day, where
people disagree and it's not possible to itemize every one of them in
the statute books. There are a lot more examples in the reported case
law, but still nowhere near all the situations.

But there is a law that covers this. What the law in every state's
statutes says is that when there is a contract, both sides have to
fulfill the promises they made in the contract. The customer promised
to pay and the store promised to deliver a certain washing machine.
The store then assured the customer that the substitution had the same
features as the model ordered. If this had been true, they would have
had an accord and satisfaction. Since it doesn't have the same
features, they have not fulfilled the original contract or the accord.
The customer has a reasonable time to determine that the accord has
not been satisified. He went back to the store the very same day it
was delivered. That is certainly within a reasonable time.

This is not the kind of situation that contractors among others face
sometimes. They find out after work is done that the client and the
contractor were thinking of different things, BUT the contractor has
already done valuable work. In that case, the contractor is, if not
payable according to the terms of the contract, at least owed quantum
meruit, how much he merited, the reasonable value of the work he did
that the customer wanted or decided to use. But in this case here the
work part is only the delivery and that can be undone easily. So the
remedy is to remove the washer and refund the money, minus perhaps one
extra pickup or delivery charge. If the customer says, I"ll keep this
one if you refund this many dollars, and they reach an agreement, that
is fine too, but it is the customer's option, and I don't think he'll
do it in this case.

More below.

On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 02:23:04 -0800, wrote:

On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 04:07:52 -0500, mm wrote:

Nonsense. If a store has a policy that states they sub and the customers has an
obligation to REFUSE delivery if they don't want the item that is well within the
law.

The law is not a jackass. It recognizes the reality of situations.

One can't reject a substitution by looking at the crate.

The OP had already talked to customer service about the substitution BEFORE it was
shipped. Why not cancel then?

Because he was told it had the same features. He's allowed to rely on
the word of an employee. The employee is an agent or at least the
apparent agent** of the principal. The principal is the store.

**That is, maybe this particular employee doesn't have the authority
to answer questions that customers ask. But the customer doesnt' know
that. All he knows is that he answered the phone or appeared in the
department and answered his questions. The employee has apparent
authority from the customer's pov. He probably also had real
authority to answer questions as the agent of the store. Agency is
rarely even an issue when someone is an employee.

Sure they told him it was virtually an identical machine but it's up to him to check
that.

No, it isn't. He's allowed to rely on the word of an employee,
especially one who works in the appliance department. If you could
show that the guy worked in the garden department and it was apparent
he worked in the garden department and not the appliance department,
and he didnt' ask anyone or look up the two model numbers and compare
the features, and said, "Well, I suppose the features are the same",
that the customer cannot rely on that. But that was not the case
here.

He could have easily checked the features of the machine on the manufacturers
website. He didn't need to accept delivery and rip open the crate.
He KNEW he was getting a sub. Why didn't he check out the model BEFORE accepting
delivery?

He relied on the word of a company employee who knew or should have
known if it had the same features. That is good enough. He has NO
obligation to go to the maker's website. It might have saved him
inconvenience, but he has no obligation to the store to have better
information than the store does. The store is responsible for
fulfilling its side of the contract.

If you own a store, maybe you wouldn't like the law some time. If
otoh you are a customer who would tolerate this, I guess it is good
for the rest of us that the store doesn't lose any money on you which
they would try to make up on the rest of the customers.

The law does not place horrible burdens on commerce, it does not
depend on people's reaction always being perfect. Stores and various
parties might have you believe that that is the case, so that you
won't complain, but it isn't so.


(In another post I said "[the law] only sometimes causes injustices,
and people don't have to be perfect. They often just have to be more
right than the other side." There are not merely imperfect but bad
things that one side can do that will preclude its recovering on the
basis of equity. The plaintiff has to have "clean hands". If he was
breaking the law, he's unlikely to be able to win. If one was cheated
buying illegal drugs, the court won't hear the case, even if the
plaintfif is more right than the other side. But the OP here didnt'
do anything to give himself unclean hands, and I think this is a
straightforward case in law anyhow. I don't think it is required to
bring equity into it.)

wrote in message
He was told IN ADVANCE about the substitution before HD shipped it.
He took them at their word it had identical features.
It's up to the customer to check if that's true. Who trusts a salesman and
accepts
delivery sight unseen.
The customer could have told them to delay shipping until he check out the
machine
for himself.


No, the store should be able to keep their word. If they screw up, they
should fix the problem. I don't see where the customer has any liability
here. When Sears makes substitutions, it is always a newer or better model
and they made customer happy.

If the store said it had identical features and it did not, the problem is
theirs.

In article , wrote:
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 20:17:21 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:


wrote in message
He was told IN ADVANCE about the substitution before HD shipped it.
He took them at their word it had identical features.
It's up to the customer to check if that's true. Who trusts a salesman and
accepts
delivery sight unseen.
The customer could have told them to delay shipping until he check out the
machine
for himself.


No, the store should be able to keep their word.

What 'word' is that? They told him he was receiving a sub, he said OK.

The store told the buyer he would receive a sub, with identical
features. The store delivered something else and therefore failed
to honor the contract.

The buyer does not have that promise in writing. But verbal
agreements are enforcable. I think the chances are extremely
high that a Judge would accept the buyers version of events
as originally told here -- it's very reasonable and plausible.

In court (small claims or otherwise) this one's pretty much
a slam dunk for the buyer unless HD have some documentary
evidence that contradicts the buyers version of the story.


--
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
| Malcolm Hoar "The more I practice, the luckier I get". |
| Gary Player. |
| http://www.malch.com/ Shpx gur PQN. |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Malcolm Hoar" wrote in message
...
In court (small claims or otherwise) this one's pretty much
a slam dunk for the buyer unless HD have some documentary
evidence that contradicts the buyers version of the story.

like a signed receipt accepting delivery?

In article , wrote:
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 20:58:56 GMT, (Malcolm Hoar) wrote:

What 'word' is that? They told him he was receiving a sub, he said OK.

The store told the buyer he would receive a sub, with identical
features.

That could be very difficult to prove.

It would be even harder for the store to prove that their
employee had NOT told the buyer the features were identical.

In a situation like this, the buyer would not have the
burden of absolute proof. Far from it. The buyers "testimony"
as posted here would very likely be quite sufficent.

Of course, all bets are off if the buyer has not been
truthful and the store can discredit some part of his
evidence.

--
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
| Malcolm Hoar "The more I practice, the luckier I get". |
| Gary Player. |
| http://www.malch.com/ Shpx gur PQN. |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 13:27:51 -0800, wrote:

Try watching Judge Judy...

Is this the one were food service employees have sex behind the
counter and she ask; "what happens when the customer comes in"?


--
Oren

"Well, it doesn't happen all the time, but when it happens, it happens constantly."

wrote

The customer could have told them to delay shipping until he check out the
machine
for himself.


DING, DING, DING! Hold your phone calls, folks, we have a winner!

The customer could have done several things differently, but for some
unstated reason did not choose to do so.

Steve

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
news:ld3Bh.4938$H77.4513@trndny08...

wrote in message
He was told IN ADVANCE about the substitution before HD shipped it.
He took them at their word it had identical features.
It's up to the customer to check if that's true. Who trusts a salesman
and accepts
delivery sight unseen.
The customer could have told them to delay shipping until he check out
the machine
for himself.


No, the store should be able to keep their word. If they screw up, they
should fix the problem. I don't see where the customer has any liability
here. When Sears makes substitutions, it is always a newer or better
model and they made customer happy.

If the store said it had identical features and it did not, the problem is
theirs.

Were this a continual time line, I would agree with you. But the "customer"
said, "I want it. Wait, I don't want it. Wait, again, I DO want it." How
much time passed between the original order and delivery? Even if it was
only days, things change. Items get sold out. They change model years.
Lots of things.

What do you do when you want a hamburger? Order it, cancel it, leave, come
back, want your hamburger, and bitch because it's cold?

Steve

"Malcolm Hoar" wrote


The buyer does not have that promise in writing. But verbal
agreements are enforcable.

And worth the paper they're written on.

Steve

The store told the buyer he would receive a sub, with identical
features.


It's a washing machine, for Pete's sake. Wash. Rinse. Spin.

Sounds like a match to me.

Steve

"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 13:27:51 -0800, wrote:

Try watching Judge Judy...

I got hooked on Texas Justice when I was in for eight days for heart
surgery. (well, not the first two days in ICU). He's as big a hoot as
Judge Judy, and the big black bailiff is a character, too.

"AlarmCo" wrote in message
...

"Malcolm Hoar" wrote in message
...
In court (small claims or otherwise) this one's pretty much
a slam dunk for the buyer unless HD have some documentary
evidence that contradicts the buyers version of the story.

like a signed receipt accepting delivery?


Now, I think that one would be worth MORE than the paper it's written on.

Steve

On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 11:35:10 -0800, wrote:

On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 04:20:18 -0500, mm wrote:

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.

There is NO contradiction.
Sears subs millions of items a year.

And that doesn't relate to the issue. I addressed subs in other posts,
and even in the previous one. If the people are satisfied, there is
no problem. If they are not, Sears and HD are liable. If people are
busy, tired, wealthy, or foolish enough to not defend their rights,
that doesn't mean those rights don't exist.

Just an hour ago there was a case on the People's Court, which is the
most authentic of the tv court shows, in which a woman bought a piece
of furniture, and then after the deal was signed, the clerk threatened
to damage her credit if she didn't pay. Of course any store would
likely do that, but it was gratuitous and nasty. She attempted to
cancel the deal, a day later according to her and six weeks later
according to the store.

The owner of the store said "It is our policy that special orders
cannot be cancelled", and the judge said, "Does it say that on the
contract?" And the owner showed that on the contract there were the
words "Special Order" and the customer had signed below that. But it
didn't say that special orders can't be cancelled. The customer was
not required to learn the stores policy. If it wasn't on the paper the
customer signed, she wasn't responsible for knowing it.

"Charlie Morgan" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 14:35:40 -0800, "Steve B" wrote:


"Malcolm Hoar" wrote


The buyer does not have that promise in writing. But verbal
agreements are enforcable.

And worth the paper they're written on.

Steve


Boy could you ever get yourself in a pickle easily. Oral agreements are
very
often found as enforceable as written contracts.

CWM


What planet are you from? On this one, paper ones are very difficult to
enforce.

Steve

On Feb 13, 10:47 am, "ebayer" wrote:
I went to home depot on 1/23/2007 and purchased a Maytag Washing
Machine.When I got home my old Maytag started to work again.
I went back and cancelled the order.
On 2/9/2007 it died so I went back to Home Depot.
I had them look up my purchase and they reissued the the Item.

Today 2/13-2007 it was received but little did I notice that
they substituted with a different model that they assure me is the
same.

It is not the same and has no delicate wash plus a multitude of
other amenities.

I went back to the store and was told since I did not refuse it on
delivery it now is not returnable.

Their manager said to be basically tough luck
I called corporate and was told basically buyer beware or Home Depot
will screw you.

Never again Home depot

Did you pay with a credit card?

That permits remedies short of adjudication.

On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 12:09:36 -0800, wrote:

On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 15:05:28 -0500, mm wrote:

A second answer to another post, followed by an answer to this post:

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 21:29:21 -0800, wrote:

On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 00:19:04 -0500, mm wrote:

customer, to educate yourself about those policies.

Their policies are superceded by the law.

Nope. No such law.

You're right there is no such law that says a store can't make
substitutions.

In this case it doesn't matter. The OP AGREED to the substitution BEFORE the washer
was shipped.
He will have to prove the sales person LIED/ or was in error about the machines
features and I doubt even that would matter to a judge.

His word is evidence. You don't always need documentaru evidence.
The court will believe him unless he presents himself somehow as a
liar or sleaze, because most people wouldn't accept a substitution
that was missing even one major feature, unless maybe there was
discount, but no discount was offerred.

In those substitutions you talk about at sears, didn't they have all
the features the ones that they were substituting for had? If stores
substitute with the latest model that has all the features and maybe
more, customers don't complain.

A problem could be when the sub had 3 improvements and 3 of the
opposite, or 3 improvements and 1 of the opposite. Or they say it is
an improvement and the customer things it is the opposite. Then an
impartial judge might decide if the sub is as good as the original.
Not so much with an appliance but with many kinds of contracts, it can
be adviseable to say -- unfortunately I forget the standard legal term
-- "It shall be a substantive clause of this contract that the band
will turn down the volume of music when requested by the bride, groom,
or the father of the bride or groom". But substantive might not be
the right word. I've always wondered who wants the band playing so
loud at many weddings etc. I get the feeling it's the band itself and
not those who hired them.

Or one might put in "time is of the essence" if delivery must be made
on time.

But here, no mention of any improvements was offered, and the absence
of a gentle cycle is certainly a "deprovement". My ex told me today
that she never uses anything but the gentle cycle except for sheets.

(Should a real man be talking about laundry?)

Good luck with that. I doubt he even knows the name of the person to whom he was
speaking.

Maybe not. In something like this, he should have gotten the name,
but he complained within the day, and I think he'll win, unless he
does something else to mess up his case. (See people often on tv
court shows, and the judge asks for some paper, and the litigant says,
"I don't have it with me.")

Whether he can prove his case is not the same question as whether, if
the judge believes him, he'll win the case.

wrote:
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 00:19:04 -0500, mm wrote:


customer, to educate yourself about those policies.

Their policies are superceded by the law.


Nope. No such law.


Of course there is. The UCC sales article. Law in 49 states
(loiuisiamna is wierd.) In the OP's
described scenario, HD shipped non confoming goods. Buyer has an
absolute riht to reject. HD
may have compounded the "error" by not providing writtn notice of the
non conformance and detals of the non conformance -- i.e. it was a
cheapr machne with fewer features han he one speciallydered.

HD gets to pick up the non conforming machin, eats all transport and
install / uninstall costs, gives the buyer a full refund, and pays the
buyer the price difference if the buyer choses to "cover" by obtaining
the full featured machne elsewhere at a price highere than HD was
selling the undelivered full featured model.

In article , "AlarmCo" wrote:

"Malcolm Hoar" wrote in message
...
In court (small claims or otherwise) this one's pretty much
a slam dunk for the buyer unless HD have some documentary
evidence that contradicts the buyers version of the story.

like a signed receipt accepting delivery?

And that contradicts the buyers version of the story, how?

The OP said that right up front.

--
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
| Malcolm Hoar "The more I practice, the luckier I get". |
| Gary Player. |
| http://www.malch.com/ Shpx gur PQN. |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In article , "Steve B" wrote:

"AlarmCo" wrote in message
.. .

"Malcolm Hoar" wrote in message
...
In court (small claims or otherwise) this one's pretty much
a slam dunk for the buyer unless HD have some documentary
evidence that contradicts the buyers version of the story.

like a signed receipt accepting delivery?


Now, I think that one would be worth MORE than the paper it's written on.

Not really since both parties to the dispute actually agree
on that particular point. Nothing needs to be proved there!

--
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
| Malcolm Hoar "The more I practice, the luckier I get". |
| Gary Player. |
| http://www.malch.com/ Shpx gur PQN. |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"z" writes:

refund. What I didn't expect is that they would scan it and tell me
they don't carry that item, and I must have bought it at Lowes. ??

Heh. I've had that happen at other stores (not Home Depot, I don't go
there much) and it's a pain. Wal-Mart used to do that to me all the
time. The funniest was when I tried to return a lamp in a box with a
pre-printed Wal-Mart price tag on it... seriously, I don't think K-Mart
was selling stuff with "Wal-Mart" on the box.

length. All the 1/2 and 3/4 inch long bolts had vanished, in 3
hours. ????

Why is Home Depot trying to Gaslight me??????

I thought I was the only one who ever use that phrase!
Home Depot re-arranges stuff too much, IMHO. We got some bags of
garden gravel a few years ago, went back the next day to get some more,
and they'd moved them to another aisle. They must be bored to be moving
rocks.

Stacia

writes:

So another 3 day delay waiting for the staff member to return from days
off.

Oh, come on. You're making up a bunch of worst case scenarios, and
exaggerating them to boot.
The store promised the guy a specific model and make of appliance, and
when they didn't have it, all they had to do was call. If Sears, which
has some seriously sad customer "service", could call me before
delivering our new washer/dryer, then Home Depot can call people, too.

customers answering machine. It's called phone tag and it costs big
companies MILLIONS.

But spending money on labor and travel just to deliver the wrong
appliance to a paying customer doesn't cost money? The customer is
going to refuse the item, which wastes the employees' time. Or they'll
demand a refund later, and the company has to go pick up the wrong
appliance. They'll probably lose customers with that kind of crappy
service, too.

Stacia

writes:

LOL! Haven't spent much time in court have you. Try watching Judge
Judy...

It's wrong of me to laugh so hard at this post, isn't it?

Stacia

See especially section 2-608, below. The whole section is relevant,
and pretty much says what I have said.

Copy to the OP with the reminder that I'm going by what he said, and
assuming he didn't leave out anything important.

It does seem hard to believe that they would behave the way the OP
describes since they are so sure to lose. But the catch here is that
"they" didn't do anything. Things are done by one, two, or three
people, who aren't always as reasonable or as informed as their bosses
would want.

Maybe the OP was combative on the phone with the main office, and the
person retaliated by brushing him off, maybe by not even listening to
whether his complaint was valid. Maybe lots of things.

And maybe the op would lose because he loses the contract or the
receipt or has no evidence about what they sent, or what he wanted.
Etc. Suing is a pain in the neck, but when one wins, it feels real
good. Also, be willing to let them make amends after you file suit
but before the trial. In many cases, especially landlord tenant, one
cannot accept the assurance of the other party that they are dropping
the case. Landlords have been known to accept the rent, or partial
rent according to their calculations and leave a tenant with the
impression that everything is settled. Meanwhile, they go to court,
the tenant doesn't, and the ll receives a default eviction order.
Here though, if he has his washer in his house, he's probably safe,
especially since he was the plaintiff, and he would have to be
notified if a counter suit had been filed.



So, based on what he said:


http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/searc...le2.htm#s2-712

This is not directly on point, and I only offer it because it uses the
term "justifiably revokes acceptance". So there are times when one
can justifiably revoke acceptance.

§ 2-712. "Cover"; Buyer's Procurement of Substitute Goods.

(1) If the seller wrongfully fails to deliver or repudiates or the
buyer rightfully rejects or justifiably revokes acceptance, the buyer
may .....

This is from the Uniform Commercial Code. There have been uniform
codes written on most parts of the law, but the UCC is the most
accepted. It has been enacted in all 50 states, or maybe it was 49,
and a few states have made a few changes, but almost the entire code
is in effect in all 49 or 50 states. I think that is possible because
there aren't too many emotional issues regarding commerce, and because
it makes interstate commerce a lot easier when there is no conflict of
laws. Every state legistlature wants its state to fully participate
in interstate commerce.

The online version I'm citing doesn't include notes, because it says,
it's license doesn't permit displaying notes. Reading the notes would
help to understand things, and might give a case on point or close,
but I don't think it's necessary.

Here is another relevant section that one can reach by . It has to be
read as a whole, because it can be misleading to cite just one
sentence without looking at the rest. Also one must know all the
relevant laws including those not in the UCC or it can be misleading.
That's why others are lawyers and we're not. But here is this part.

See especially section 2-608. The whole section is relevant:

"§ 2-607. Effect of Acceptance; Notice of Breach; Burden of
Establishing Breach After Acceptance; Notice of Claim or Litigation
to Person Answerable Over.

(1) The buyer must pay at the contract rate for any goods accepted.

(2) Acceptance of goods by the buyer precludes rejection of the goods
accepted and if made with knowledge of a non-conformity cannot be
revoked because of it unless the acceptance was on the reasonable
assumption that the non-conformity would be seasonably cured but
acceptance does not of itself impair any other remedy provided by this
Article for non-conformity.

(3) Where a tender has been accepted

(a) the buyer must within a reasonable time after he discovers or
should have discovered any breach notify the seller of breach or be
barred from any remedy; and

(b) [definitely not relevant imo] if the claim is one for infringement
or the like (subsection (3) of Section 2-312) and the buyer is sued as
a result of such a breach he must so notify the seller within a
reasonable time after he receives notice of the litigation or be
barred from any remedy over for liability established by the
litigation.

(4) The burden is on the buyer to establish any breach with respect to
the goods accepted.

(5) Where the buyer is sued for breach of a warranty or other
obligation for which his seller is answerable over

(a) he may give his seller written notice of the litigation. If the
notice states that the seller may come in and defend and that if the
seller does not do so he will be bound in any action against him by
his buyer by any determination of fact common to the two litigations,
then unless the seller after seasonable receipt of the notice does
come in and defend he is so bound.

(b) if the claim is one for infringement or the like (subsection (3)
of Section 2-312) the original seller may demand in writing that his
buyer turn over to him control of the litigation including settlement
or else be barred from any remedy over and if he also agrees to bear
all expense and to satisfy any adverse judgment, then unless the buyer
after seasonable receipt of the demand does turn over control the
buyer is so barred.

(6) The provisions of subsections (3), (4) and (5) apply to any
obligation of a buyer to hold the seller harmless against infringement
or the like (subsection (3) of Section 2-312).

§ 2-608. Revocation of Acceptance in Whole or in Part.

(1) The buyer may revoke his acceptance of a lot or commercial unit
whose non-conformity substantially impairs its value to him if he has
accepted it

(a) on the reasonable assumption that its non-conformity would be
cured and it has not been seasonably cured; or

(b) without discovery of such non-conformity if his acceptance was
reasonably induced either by the difficulty of discovery before
acceptance or by the seller's assurances.

(2) Revocation of acceptance must occur within a reasonable time after
the buyer discovers or should have discovered the ground for it and
before any substantial change in condition of the goods which is not
caused by their own defects. It is not effective until the buyer
notifies the seller of it.

(3) A buyer who so revokes has the same rights and duties with regard
to the goods involved as if he had rejected them.

(4) If a buyer uses the goods after a rightful rejection or
justifiable revocation of acceptance, the following rules apply:

(a) Any use by the buyer that is unreasonable under the circumstances
is wrongful as against the seller and is an acceptance only if
ratified by the seller.

(b) Any use of the goods that is reasonable under the circumstances is
not wrongful as against the seller and is not an acceptance, but in an
appropriate case the buyer is obligated to the seller for the value of
the use to the buyer."

On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 13:27:51 -0800, wrote:

On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 21:19:39 GMT, (Malcolm Hoar) wrote:

In article , wrote:
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 20:58:56 GMT, (Malcolm Hoar) wrote:

What 'word' is that? They told him he was receiving a sub, he said OK.

The store told the buyer he would receive a sub, with identical
features.

That could be very difficult to prove.

It would be even harder for the store to prove that their
employee had NOT told the buyer the features were identical.

LOL! Haven't spent much time in court have you. Try watching Judge Judy...

Judge Judy is nothing like a real judge. She was chosen for being
flamboyant and not judicial. She thinks everyone fits her 8
stereotpes about what people are like.

You must be kidding, because real court is nothing like her show.

Judge Wapner, the original People's Court judge, who actually went and
found the appropriate statute and quoted it when he was on tv, just
last week bemoaned how she misleads people about how real courts work.
How she is abusive to some of the litigants.

And there was an episode of Diane Rehm about 2 years ago with a couple
local law professors complaining about her show. They said court
shows in general, but most of their comments applied to JJudy and
maybe some others, and maybe none to the People's Court (although the
guy in the lobby on that show is a jerk, routinely in effect calls
people liars, and some day someone will be waiting for him when he
leaves and will beat the tar out of him. But the other two are very
good.)

On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 16:14:39 -0500, "AlarmCo" wrote:


"Malcolm Hoar" wrote in message
...
In court (small claims or otherwise) this one's pretty much
a slam dunk for the buyer unless HD have some documentary
evidence that contradicts the buyers version of the story.

like a signed receipt accepting delivery?

Not enough.

See
http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/searc...le2.htm#s2-608

On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 14:57:44 -0800, "Steve B"
wrote:


"Charlie Morgan" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 14:35:40 -0800, "Steve B" wrote:


"Malcolm Hoar" wrote


The buyer does not have that promise in writing. But verbal
agreements are enforcable.

And worth the paper they're written on.

Steve


Boy could you ever get yourself in a pickle easily. Oral agreements are
very
often found as enforceable as written contracts.

They ARE just as enforceable, but they are harder to prove. Once
proven, the difficulty of proving them is no longer an issue, unless
the losing party can argue that as a matter of law, there is no
contract. Matters of fact are not reviewable once the trial court has
decided something, whether by judge or jury.

The exception is contracts for the purchase of land (and maybe other
acts regarding land, I forget). They MUST be in writing. If
interested, look up the Statute of Frauds.

CWM


What planet are you from? On this one, paper ones are very difficult to
enforce.

He didn't say easy to enforce. He said just as enforceable. Court
judgements against corporations with a fixed location and tangible
assets are very easy to enforce. You tell the marshall to go and
sieze something that the marshall can sell for more money that the
other party owes you, and that's what he will do. Like he might take
power tools whose value is two or three times the judgement plus the
marshall's fee. The marshall has some way to sell this stuff and
recoup themoney. Or HD pays the judgment and marshall's fees and gets
its power tools back. If it is a bigger judgment they would take one
of the HD rent-a-trucks.

But it doesn't come to that, because normal companies know what is
coming next, and they pay in cash when they lose in court and have no
basis to appeal.

Steve

"Malcolm Hoar" wrote


Not really since both parties to the dispute actually agree
on that particular point. Nothing needs to be proved there!

For the purposes of discussion here, I propose that we are talking apples
and oranges. Yes, oral contracts are binding and enforceable, but probably
only when witnesses are present. Other than that, it's one person's word
against the other. And yes, we do make oral contracts all the time, a
"gentleman's agreement" sealed with a handshake. Time once was when you
could stake your life on the deal made, but times have changed, and people
have changed. Taking someone to court or suing someone over an oral
agreement made between two people would be something I don't believe would
have high success rate.

Steve

"Stacia" wrote in message
...
writes:

So another 3 day delay waiting for the staff member to return from days
off.

Not sure where you live, but my Home Depot is so short handed, I think
working 8 days a week is a requirement.

Steve

On 15 Feb 2007 15:17:03 -0800, "MRS. CLEAN"
wrote:

On Feb 13, 10:47 am, "ebayer" wrote:
I went to home depot on 1/23/2007 and purchased a Maytag Washing
Machine.When I got home my old Maytag started to work again.
I went back and cancelled the order.
On 2/9/2007 it died so I went back to Home Depot.
I had them look up my purchase and they reissued the the Item.

Today 2/13-2007 it was received but little did I notice that
they substituted with a different model that they assure me is the
same.

It is not the same and has no delicate wash plus a multitude of
other amenities.

I went back to the store and was told since I did not refuse it on
delivery it now is not returnable.

Their manager said to be basically tough luck
I called corporate and was told basically buyer beware or Home Depot
will screw you.

Never again Home depot

Did you pay with a credit card?

That permits remedies short of adjudication.

Adjudication?

I bet you know Arbitrary and Capricious GFG

--
Oren

"Well, it doesn't happen all the time, but when it happens, it happens constantly."