Is it ethically right to do this?

[SuBXeRo]

Ok, so i put an order in to emotiva for a umc-1 and xpa-5. I wont be in town to receive the package so i told them to hold my order and ship it out in about a week, i ordered everything about a week ago. Keep in mind, they dont bill me until they ship it out too. I get a call yesterday that they ran out of UMC-1's and they'll ship them out a day or 2 after i get back in town so ill only get the XPA-5. Now, don't get me wrong, i don't think im out of line or anything but, why would they not hold my product after having my cc and everything waiting for the transaction to be processes all well knowing that i want the product. I am now waiting for the product longer than i should while someone else gets "my" umc-1. I can understand them shipping out early if it was like "please hold it for me but i dont wanna pay yet" but i sent in everything and my CC was authorized for payment already. My gripe with it is that i will actually physically be home to sign for the packages since i'll be off work and now one will come while im at work and the leasing office will hold and sign for the package or itll go to the shipper for pickup. Ethically right? Am i in the wrong? Bad business practice? Just wanna get an idea of what you all think. Not trying to bad mouth emotiva but i just wanna rant a lil.

[laager]

So there's no hold on funds on your CC until they ship? If so, you haven't paid for the item yet and Emotiva aren't a storage yard. It would be different if they actually charged the card but in that event you still aren't paying for storage.

[SuBXeRo]

well, its the fact that i called and they said they would hold my items for me, the whole premise behind me doing this early was to ensure i got the products i needed during the timeframe that i have to work with. I was under the impression that they would charge my card as soon as i ordered but i called and checked after a couple of days after i didnt see anything on my cc. I am working with the issues since i cant do much else but its a matter of, they are doing half of what they said they would do, it would have been nice to have had a headsup about this in the beginning. I know im fortunute enough as is that they are doing this for me but i would have liked to have seen them go a little bit further. They have done great so far, everyone has been a great help and is very personable.

Keep in mind, the CC was authorized already to be run and whatnot, all of my info is in their hands, as far as I am concerned, as soon and i got confirmation of that, my intent to purchase was complete.

[twistedcrankcammer]

laager is correct. With a credit card, you can change your mind, even after it is shipped. Asking them to hold it on your terms is hokey, you could still change your mind. A bird in the hand.... It is just good buiseness to sell to the one who wants it now, still even if they had discussed otherwise doesn't mean the messages didn't get missed.

It is a fact of law that if if you buy something from me without a written contract, you cannot force me to sell it to you, even after you have sent me the money. you can take me to court, and get a judgement, but that doesn't guarantee you will ever see a penny. Say I descide to increase the price after you send your money, I can send your money back, and there isn't a damned thing you can do about it.

In the grand scheme of things your complaint is petty, and the results may not even be intensional.

Roger

[oscarsear]

In todays economy I am sure no business would yank a buying customers chain for the fun of it. They gave you the courtesy of a call and are otherwise working with your personal shipping schedule. Stuff happens. It's not the end of the world.

[winchester21]

If the product was in lower demand they would be bending over backward to make you happy. The customer is not always right but he IS the CUSTOMER. 25 years ago I adopted this policy with my customers. Please them at any cost within reason. I attribute my success in business to this attitude. I have dealt with many audio vendors in my recent system build. I travel frequently so I am in the same boat as you. In most cases they have held stuff- drop shipped - delayed shipments- ect Emotiva has a hot product but they should accomidate your wishes. I don't think that your situation is that unreasonable given that you are ready to drop that amount of cash. You not buying a freaking Sony from Best Buy. Hope it turns out to your satisfaction.

[laager]

It is a fact of law that if if you buy something from me without a written contract, you cannot force me to sell it to you, even after you have sent me the money. you can take me to court, and get a judgement, but that doesn't guarantee you will ever see a penny. Say I descide to increase the price after you send your money, I can send your money back, and there isn't a damned thing you can do about it.

Which law school do they teach that in?

[twistedcrankcammer]

It is a fact of law that if if you buy something from me without a written contract, you cannot force me to sell it to you, even after you have sent me the money. you can take me to court, and get a judgement, but that doesn't guarantee you will ever see a penny. Say I descide to increase the price after you send your money, I can send your money back, and there isn't a damned thing you can do about it.

Which law school do they teach that in?

laager,

I haven't exactly talked to my brother or his wife about this per see (both attourneys), but I know from personal experience of a guy who ripped me off for $2,700 , and a friend that got ripped for considderably more that a small claims judgement isn't worth the paper it is wriiten on. Neither of us could ever collect a dime. As for the rest, another close friend is going through a court case at this moment that a guy made a deal for partial trade of a set of rockers verbaly, towards a set of heads my friend manufactures. The buyer changed his mind and sent a check for full purchase price that my friend advertises his heads for. My friend never cashed the check and the buyer wont accept the check back, and is wants the heads, my friend said he will not sell them to him for $5,000 and the increased the price. The would be buyer cannot force him to sell the heads, no contract verbal or otherwise. Even if there was a verbal contract... PROVE IT!! Very hard if not impossible to prove, no money changed hands, and certainly not worth $300 an hour to prove otherwise. What a pissed off attourney may be able to accomplish on his own is one thing, the law that the rest of us is something entirely different, or didn't you learn that?

Roger

[SuBXeRo]

twistedcrankcammer - u are right about the contracts, try proving a verbal agreement...same arguement, its not worth fighting over in a case like that. Your idea of the business model of "its just good business" is the new model for business, that is why there are no more 25 yr vets in business, out with the old in with the new, cheap unexperienced labor, customer comes second..its just good business. Also, keep in mind, i can cancel y order or return my items anyways...so what you are saying is even after i paid it they could just say sorry, we are sending your product to someone else becayse he has the black amex. Businesses can really do what ever they want to their customer barring illegal activities, alot of activities which would aggrevate many customers to not be a repeat. If you like to stay in business, its in your best interest to act ethically, i took many a business class where ethical business practices came up. What emotiva did/is doing to me is far far far from the most unethical thing they could do to me, its just something that makes me feel like they dont want my business, and that i am second class to someone else.

Winchester - your philosphy is a breath of fresh air since so many businesses have lost the mom/pop feel. I am very a man of my word, i say i wil do something, i do it, i believe it makes for good business and barring an unfortunate incident, i do what i say.

O yeah, i did buy a sony..at bestbuy, TV that is and they are holding it for me for pickup when i arrive, fully paid for

[twistedcrankcammer]

twistedcrankcammer - u are right about the contracts, try proving a verbal agreement...same arguement, its not worth fighting over in a case like that. Your idea of the business model of "its just good business" is the new model for business, that is why there are no more 25 yr vets in business, out with the old in with the new, cheap unexperienced labor, customer comes second..its just good business. Also, keep in mind, i can cancel y order or return my items anyways...so what you are saying is even after i paid it they could just say sorry, we are sending your product to someone else becayse he has the black amex. Businesses can really do what ever they want to their customer barring illegal activities, alot of activities which would aggrevate many customers to not be a repeat. If you like to stay in business, its in your best interest to act ethically, i took many a business class where ethical business practices came up. What emotiva did/is doing to me is far far far from the most unethical thing they could do to me, its just something that makes me feel like they dont want my business, and that i am second class to someone else.

Winchester - your philosphy is a breath of fresh air since so many businesses have lost the mom/pop feel. I am very a man of my word, i say i wil do something, i do it, i believe it makes for good business and barring an unfortunate incident, i do what i say.

O yeah, i did buy a sony..at bestbuy, TV that is and they are holding it for me for pickup when i arrive, fully paid for

SuBXeRo,

I am glad you did not take offense to this as a personal attack, as it was not meant that way, and I agree with everything you said. Is it ethical? No, not if done on purpose, but then again, was it done on purpose? No way to tell for sure. I would go up the chain of command over the phone in a pleasant tone and describe how you were wronged. What they do after the fact to make you whole will say alot more about them as a company. Go up the chain of comand, and if they don't give you satisfaction, ask for thheir superior. Keep doing this until you are satisfied that their answer is in fact "We don't care", then report back and tell us all what happened>

Roger

[winchester21]

Just using Sony as an example of box store merchandise as opposed to audiophile gear- There are 2 Sony products in my equipment profile.

Best buy..... another story for another day. I will not hijack your thread with a 10 minute rant Hope it all works for you,

[laager]

...didn't you learn that?

I learned a lot of things in law school and much more in subsequent legal practice. One of them was not to confuse personal anecdotes with the state of the law.

[Jeff Matthews]

twistedcrankcammer - u are right about the contracts, try proving a verbal agreement...same arguement, its not worth fighting over in a case like that. Your idea of the business model of "its just good business" is the new model for business, that is why there are no more 25 yr vets in business, out with the old in with the new, cheap unexperienced labor, customer comes second..its just good business. Also, keep in mind, i can cancel y order or return my items anyways...so what you are saying is even after i paid it they could just say sorry, we are sending your product to someone else becayse he has the black amex. Businesses can really do what ever they want to their customer barring illegal activities, alot of activities which would aggrevate many customers to not be a repeat. If you like to stay in business, its in your best interest to act ethically, i took many a business class where ethical business practices came up. What emotiva did/is doing to me is far far far from the most unethical thing they could do to me, its just something that makes me feel like they dont want my business, and that i am second class to someone else.

Winchester - your philosphy is a breath of fresh air since so many businesses have lost the mom/pop feel. I am very a man of my word, i say i wil do something, i do it, i believe it makes for good business and barring an unfortunate incident, i do what i say.

O yeah, i did buy a sony..at bestbuy, TV that is and they are holding it for me for pickup when i arrive, fully paid for

Whether they ran your credit card or not, it doesn't mean there is no enforceable contract. Oral agreements are enforceable, with some exceptions which fall under the "statute for frauds." There are many statutes of frauds, but as to goods, Section 2-201 of the Uniform Commercial Code governs.

Keep in mind the floor for a requirement of a written agreement is $5,000. Contracts for the sale of goods in an amount of less than $5,000 do not need to be in writing. Also, the writing requirement does not exist in case where both parties admit the contract exists. (There are some twists to this general rule).

Notwithstanding the above, there is a difference between minimal legal requirements and ethics. Ethically, if the seller agreed to hold the product, it should have done so. If circumstances arose, such as an intervening sales opportunity that would require the one on hold to be sold, it should have called buyer and said, "If we don't sell the one we have for you, we'll lose this other sale. Is it okay to sell this one if we can get yours to you by x date?"

So, no, what was done was not ethically acceptable, but sometimes, expediency can outweigh ethics in making a business decision. In this case, it was a good business decision because buyer is going to lump it and take the goods late, despite the inconvenience.

Note that the exception to the writing requirement found in 2-201(3)© does not apply because it seller did not run the credit card transaction and so, payment was not made and accepted.

§ 2-201.
Formal Requirements; Statute of Frauds.

(1) A contract
for the sale
of goods
for
the price of $5,000 or more is not enforceable by way of action or
defense unless
there is some record sufficient to indicate that a contract

for sale has been made between the parties and signed by the party
against
which enforcement is sought or by the party's authorized agent or
broker. A record
is not insufficient because it omits or incorrectly states a term
agreed upon
but the contract is not enforceable under this subsection beyond the
quantity
of goods
shown in the record.

(2) Between

merchants if within a reasonable time a record in confirmation of
the contract
and
sufficient against the sender is received and the party receiving it
has reason
to know its contents, it satisfies the requirements of subsection (1)
against
the recipient unless notice of objection to its contents is given in a
record within
10 days after it is received.

(3) A contract
that
does not satisfy the requirements of subsection (1) but which is valid
in other
respects is enforceable:

(a) if the goods are
to be specially
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
that reasonably indicate that the goods are for the buyer, has made
either
a substantial beginning of their manufacture or commitments for their
procurement;

( if the party against which enforcement is
sought admits
in the party's pleading, or in the party's testimony or otherwise under
oath that a contract

for sale was made, but the contract
is not enforceable
under this paragraph beyond the quantity of goods
admitted; or

© with respect to goods for
which
payment has been made and accepted or which have been received and
accepted
(Sec. 2-606).

(4) A contract
that is enforceable under this section is not unenforceable merely
because it is not capable of being performed within one year or any
other period after its making.

[Jeff Matthews]

...didn't you learn that?

I learned a lot of things in law school and much more in subsequent legal practice. One of them was not to confuse personal anecdotes with the state of the law.

You're somewhere in Oz, and if you took Contracts with the Wizard, I'd say you're right. []

The answer to the question on the law can be found at Section 2-201 of the UCC. I wrote a post, but apparently it is suspended, pending moderator review. I don't know why. It must have saw something odd, but it was a pretty mundane post.

[laager]

You're somewhere in Oz, and if you took Contracts with the Wizard, I'd say you're right.

What was stated is this: 'It is a fact of law that if if you buy something from me without a written contract, you cannot force me to sell it to you...'

That is without qualification and as the law stands is an incorrect generalisation. If a desire for accuracy, rather than advancment of generalities without any limitation or qualification of applicability is evidence of having taken 'Contracts with the Wizard' then I guess I did. [8-)]

[Jeff Matthews]

You're somewhere in Oz, and if you took Contracts with the Wizard, I'd say you're right.

What was stated is this: 'It is a fact of law that if if you buy something from me without a written contract, you cannot force me to sell it to you...'

That is without qualification and as the law stands is an incorrect generalisation. If a desire for accuracy, rather than advancment of generalities without any limitation or qualification of applicability is evidence of having taken 'Contracts with the Wizard' then I guess I did.

I was stating you were right in a humorous way. Look up the statute I cited.

[twistedcrankcammer]

You're somewhere in Oz, and if you took Contracts with the Wizard, I'd say you're right.

What was stated is this: 'It is a fact of law that if if you buy something from me without a written contract, you cannot force me to sell it to you...'

That is without qualification and as the law stands is an incorrect generalisation. If a desire for accuracy, rather than advancment of generalities without any limitation or qualification of applicability is evidence of having taken 'Contracts with the Wizard' then I guess I did.

laager,

Semantics! Fact of law, not a statute of law. Wanna settle this argument? Send me some money on some speakers and then I'll refuse to send them, and see what happens? I bet I win! Maybe not in court, but you won't get your money back! Small claims is not going to throw me in jail for not repaying you, and you are going to be out. What the law may have been set up for and what happens are two seperate issues. There is no "Debters Prison" anymore.

Roger