Walmart destroys private property

[Gracie]

Read the story. Walmart does not make the rings themselves, they contract them out to a jeweler.

It doesn't matter who makes the rings, they are obligated to sell it. Also notice the specific usage of the word "retailer" and not "Walmart."

They are not obligated to sell anything.

You are making up laws and regulations that simply don't exist.

When they accept payment, yes, they are obligated. Going in to a diner and asking for apple pie and they say no, sorry, we are out of apple pie, it is not a fulfilled contract or a meeting of the minds. PAYING for something IN ADVANCE and not getting what was PAID FOR in ADVANCE is a breach of contract. The ring was there. It was ready to be picked up. They refused to give to her what she PAID FOR IN ADVANCE.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Read the story. Walmart does not make the rings themselves, they contract them out to a jeweler.

It doesn't matter who makes the rings, they are obligated to sell it. Also notice the specific usage of the word "retailer" and not "Walmart."

They are not obligated to sell anything.

You are making up laws and regulations that simply don't exist.

When they accept payment, yes, they are obligated. Going in to a diner and asking for apple pie and they say no, sorry, we are out of apple pie, it is not a fulfilled contract or a meeting of the minds. PAYING for something IN ADVANCE and not getting what was PAID FOR in ADVANCE is a breach of contract. The ring was there. It was ready to be picked up. They refused to give to her what she PAID FOR IN ADVANCE.

Please cite the law that "obligates" them to sell the ring.

 

[Gracie]

I ain't a lawyer. If I were that woman, I would get one. And sue.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I ain't a lawyer. If I were that woman, I would get one. And sue.

It is very clear that you're not a lawyer, because if you were, you'd know that it's very unlikely any grounds exist for a lawsuit.

 

[Moonglow]

I'm going to make a simple observation here...

When you offer to sell an item to the public, you are entering yourself into a retail contract. You agree to sell, the consumer agrees to buy, with the full expectation of receiving the product you agreed to sell them.

If I understand my contract law correctly, this woman could sue under a clause known as "specific performance." If all she wants is the ring, in lieu of monetary damages, this is what she would need to do. Money will not be an adequate remedy for the item desired. This method, if successful on behalf of the plaintiff, would force Wal-Mart to fulfill the contract as agreed to.

She would have a solid case, in my honest opinion.

And Wal Mart will drag it out until there is no value in the restitution...

 

[Gracie]

I ain't a lawyer. If I were that woman, I would get one. And sue.

It is very clear that you're not a lawyer, because if you were, you'd know that it's very unlikely any grounds exist for a lawsuit.

I think there are grounds. But like I said..I am not a lawyer.

 

[Dragonlady]

You couldn't make Donald Trump look like a dumb ass, clown. Next to you, everyone's a ******* Einstein.

Still waiting for that contract...

There was a contract, I've already explained retail contracts to you. Walmart failed to deliver the merchandise, my understanding is the ring was supposed to have the high school mascot on it, while Walmart can (but shouldn't) refuse to put the mascot on the ring the moment they put any other high school mascot on any other ring they are in the wrong. The confederate flag is not banned in this nation and Walmart cannot pick and choose what mascots they will and will not put on a ring.

1. Are you under the impression that relaying an anecdote from your lawyer husband about a car dealership somehow "proves" that a contract exists for this ring order?

2. Of course Walmart can "pick and choose" what mascots they will or will not put on a ring. What prevents them from doing so?

Any argument with "they are a private business and can do what they want" will immediately be rebutted with the bakers were also a private business. This would be part of that slippery slope you all were warned about.

There are laws protecting LGBT customers from discrimination, and the bakers were sued under those laws. There is no law that protects the Confederate Flag from discrimination.

Now, can the student sue? He could but would have a difficult time proving emotional damages and would be best to take the money back and find another retailer that will supply the desired ring. Pretty much what the lesbians should have done in the case of their pretend marriage wedding cake

In other words, there's no grounds for a lawsuit, and they'd lose it if they tried.

Thanks for agreeing with me.

I never agreed with you, there are grounds but the effort and expense of a suit outweighs the chance of damages being awarded. Keep in mind before this exchange began you didn't know the definition of a retail contract, it's doubtful I'm going to take you serious on anything else regarding this matter.

As far as I remember, this conversation started with you utterly failing at reading comprehension, so I don't exactly think you're in much of a position to talk about being taken seriously.

If you don't want to respond to my posts, then don't.

No one is forcing you to, and the more you whine about not taking me seriously, the more the space I rent in your head becomes clear.

Anyway, let's recap your arguments:

Because your husband's law firm represented someone suing a car dealer once, therefore a signed, legally binding contract for this ring order must exist, and must have been violated when the sale was cancelled, therefore providing grounds for a lawsuit.

Did I miss anything?

Yeah, the part where you didn't know what a retail contract is and the fact it can be between a retailer and a customer. You're upset, relax, you're just not as clever as you make yourself out to be.

And neither are you. There is not and there never was a basis for a law suit.

When someone buys a car, there is a contract, which is signed by both parties. When someone orders a class ring, the "contract" is not as enforceable, contract is a slip of paper, and not likely signed. The value of the goods isn't the same. The ring is sized, but isn't otherwise a special order, unlike a car which has specific options and color.

Leave the practice of law to your husband cupcake. You're not smart enough for it.

 

[Dragonlady]

I ain't a lawyer. If I were that woman, I would get one. And sue.

It is very clear that you're not a lawyer, because if you were, you'd know that it's very unlikely any grounds exist for a lawsuit.

I think there are grounds. But like I said..I am not a lawyer.

There are no grounds. There is no prejudice against a protected class under public accommodation laws. "Specific performance" only applies to items which are unique or difficult to obtain - houses, art work, antiques, the sort of things you can't get anywhere else. A class ring is not unique.

There is no pain and suffering. The woman hasn't suffered financial loss or other damages. She can obtain the class ring through other sources.

Walmart will simply refund her money. There is no value in this a lawsuit. If someone did press a suit, it might be dismissed as "vexatious" and the woman would have to pay Walmart's legal costs.

 

[Gracie]

All in all....walfart COULD have made a customer happy by fulfilling the transaction and explaining why it was done...i.e. "none of us were prepared for what transpired but since you are a valued customer and would rather have the ring than the money refunded, we will agree to the transaction this one time". Everyone is happy. Deal is done. But they didn't do that.


I think everyone from the past 20 years should take back ANYTHING with a rebel flag on it and demand their money back.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You are making up laws and regulations that simply don't exist.

Actually not. The Uniform Code of Commerce does exist. Article 2 governs the sale of goods under contract. It also includes transactions conducted on the good faith of the seller to the buyer. Section 2-503 (b) requires the seller tender the delivery of the item according to the contract. Section 2-301 requires the seller to transfer goods that have been paid for under the contract.

UCC Section 2-301:

The obligation of the seller is to transfer and deliver and that of the buyer is to accept and pay in accordance with the contract.

UCC Section 2-503:

(1) Tender of delivery requires that the seller put and hold conforming goods at the buyer's disposition and give the buyer any notification reasonably necessary to enable him to take delivery. The manner, time and place for tender are determined by the agreement and this Article, and in particular

(a) tender must be at a reasonable hour, and if it is of goods they must be kept available for the period reasonably necessary to enable the buyer to take possession; but
(b) unless otherwise agreed the buyer must furnish facilities reasonably suited to the receipt of the goods.

(2) Where the case is within the next section respecting shipment tender requires that the seller comply with its provisions.

(3) Where the seller is required to deliver at a particular destination tender requires that he comply with subsection (1) and also in any appropriate case tender documents as described in subsections (4) and (5) of this section.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You are making up laws and regulations that simply don't exist.

Actually not. The Uniform Code of Commerce does exist. Article 2 governs the sale of goods under contract. It also includes transactions conducted on the good faith of the seller to the buyer.

UCC Section 2-301:

The obligation of the seller is to transfer and deliver and that of the buyer is to accept and pay in accordance with the contract.

As I've pointed out repeatedly in this thread, you are referring to a "contract" that you haven't read, and may not exist.

Whether or not there are grounds for a lawsuit would be entirely dependent on the exact wording and clauses in this hypothetical "contract" - which, if it does exist in any formal sense, would almost certainly include clauses allowing Walmart to cancel the sale for any reason.

 

[JoeMoma]

I ain't a lawyer. If I were that woman, I would get one. And sue.

It is very clear that you're not a lawyer, because if you were, you'd know that it's very unlikely any grounds exist for a lawsuit.

I think there are grounds. But like I said..I am not a lawyer.

There are no grounds. There is no prejudice against a protected class under public accommodation laws. "Specific performance" only applies to items which are unique or difficult to obtain - houses, art work, antiques, the sort of things you can't get anywhere else. A class ring is not unique.

There is no pain and suffering. The woman hasn't suffered financial loss or other damages. She can obtain the class ring through other sources.

Walmart will simply refund her money. There is no value in this a lawsuit. If someone did press a suit, it might be dismissed as "vexatious" and the woman would have to pay Walmart's legal costs.

Of course there are grounds for a lawsuit. Walmart made an agreement ( contract) with the lady to supply the ring. Also, a class ring is unique, it is made with the special order of each customer. Walmart most probably subcontracted the making of the ring to an outside source. Since Walmart agreed to supply the ring as ordered, the lady lost the time (probably at least a week) that could have been used to have the ring produced elsewhere. And then Walmart called the lady to come pick up the ring because it was ready, so the lady was met with a big surprise when told that she could get the item that she had already paid for, even though the ring was now available at the stored. Bottom line, she was lied too. This is almost like a cruel April fools joke.

 

[TemplarKormac]

As I've pointed out repeatedly in this thread, you are referring to a "contract" that you haven't read, and may not exist.

Lets go over the elements of a contract, and contrast them with the sale and purchase of a piece of movable property, in this case, a ring:

The elements of a contract are: (I) an agreement; (II) between competent parties; (III) based upon the genuine assent of the parties; (IV) supported by consideration; (V) made for a lawful objective; and (VI) in the form required by law.

I - The agreement was made when the purchaser paid money to the retailer in advance for the delivery of the item; and the retailer agreed to deliver the ring in exchange for the appropriate payment (or "tender of delivery").

II - Both parties are assumed to be competent at the time they engaged in the agreement.

III - Genuine assent is met when both competent parties complete and "assent to" the agreement.

IV - When both parties agree to the exchange, it is "supported by consideration."

V - The lawful objective here is the sale of the ring.

VI - The law which governs this type of contract, is UCC 2-503, which states:

(1) Tender of delivery requires that the seller put and hold conforming goods at the buyer's disposition and give the buyer any notification reasonably necessary to enable him to take delivery. The manner, time and place for tender are determined by the agreement and this Article, and in particular

(a) tender must be at a reasonable hour, and if it is of goods they must be kept available for the period reasonably necessary to enable the buyer to take possession; but
(b) unless otherwise agreed the buyer must furnish facilities reasonably suited to the receipt of the goods.

When all of these stipulations are met, you have a written contract. Therefore, all the elements of a contract existed between this woman, Walmart, and the retailer at the time the transferal of funds commenced. Plus, the retailer agreed to deliver the ring. Each time you buy or sell something legally, you enter into a binding contract. The seller is required to deliver the goods, and you are required to pay for them. When you pay for the delivery of an item, you are always presented with an invoice, for reference. For this to hold the weight of a contract, there must be evidence of a contract in place, such as the invoice. That represents the "assent" part of the contract.

Simple contract law.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

She should sue. She has an excellent case.

They gave her a refund. I don't know what she could really sue over. Bad business practice by Walmart, though.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

She should sue. She has an excellent case.

They gave her a refund. I don't know what she could really sue over. Bad business practice by Walmart, though.

If I were her I would find a lawyer that could use the case history from the suit against the baker that refused to bake the homosexual wedding cake.
very similar situations, in both cases the business refused to supply an item that could be found other places, that was not illegal, and the refusal only based on the moral restraints of the company.
She will win.

 

[my2¢]

This is why I only shop at the Family Dollar!

 

[LoneLaugher]

Silly nutters.

 

[Gracie]

She purchased the ring for her relative. The ring was ready for pick up. She went to fetch the ring, ALREADY PAID FOR, to give to the relative. There was no time to find a new place to make the ring. Time is of the essence. That was what was agreed on, when they TOOK HER MONEY. Once they TOOK HER MONEY, the sale was final. She had to wait for the ring to be made to her specifications..I presume the year of the graduation, the rebel flag, maybe the relatives initials? Who knows. Point is, the sale was already completed. They just refused to give her what she contracted them for AFTER it was made and already waiting for her to pick up.

Yes. I think she has a case.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

She purchased the ring for her relative. The ring was ready for pick up. She went to fetch the ring, ALREADY PAID FOR, to give to the relative. There was no time to find a new place to make the ring. Time is of the essence. That was what was agreed on, when they TOOK HER MONEY. Once they TOOK HER MONEY, the sale was final. She had to wait for the ring to be made to her specifications..I presume the year of the graduation, the rebel flag, maybe the relatives initials? Who knows. Point is, the sale was already completed. They just refused to give her what she contracted them for AFTER it was made and already waiting for her to pick up.

Yes. I think she has a case.

and I hope she sues and wins.
I might go try to get the black owned bakery in the area I work to make a confederate flag cake.

 

[LoneLaugher]

She purchased the ring for her relative. The ring was ready for pick up. She went to fetch the ring, ALREADY PAID FOR, to give to the relative. There was no time to find a new place to make the ring. Time is of the essence. That was what was agreed on, when they TOOK HER MONEY. Once they TOOK HER MONEY, the sale was final. She had to wait for the ring to be made to her specifications..I presume the year of the graduation, the rebel flag, maybe the relatives initials? Who knows. Point is, the sale was already completed. They just refused to give her what she contracted them for AFTER it was made and already waiting for her to pick up.

Yes. I think she has a case.

and I hope she sues and wins.
I might go try to get the black owned bakery in the area I work to make a confederate flag cake.

That's awesome! What will the filling be?