Agreed the law gets in the way, as usual.
I don't think another exists.
Anything else for same dealer cost
I hate to spend $2000 on an attorney to get $500 in compensation.
Why are you guys so mad at retailer who did nothing wrong instead of CAI who ripped him off? Even if retailer takes loss on gun and refunds sale price, OP is still out money. The ONLY person who should take a loss on this is CAI. Everyone else should be made whole.
The idea of CAI destroying gun, refunding money to FFL is so fucking retarded I do not know what to say. They are the villains here.
Your logic is faulty
FFL began with W dollars.
He spent X dollars to purchase the gun to sell with his business.
OP sent him X + Y dollars for the gun.
FFL now has W + Y dollars.
OP made a complaint to the manufacturer, who then sent the FFL money.
FFL now has W + X + Y dollars.
He is offering to return X dollars only.
FFL has W + Y dollars in this case.
FFL does not take a loss in any scenario here.
FFL now has Y with which to put towards the X cost of another revolver, which will net him Z = Y profit.
Unethical.
Name calling isn't necessary.Your logic is typical liberal BS, going after the person who has money instead of the person who wronged you.
FFL did nothing wrong, and should not even be part of discussion. CAI made the broken gun, CAI refused to make things right. FFL is just the mailman delivering the refund from CAI to the customer.
Name calling isn't necessary.
MFG gives full refund to FFL.
FFL gives full refund to purchaser.
Everyone is right back where they started....seems quite simple.
You said his logic was typical liberal BS.No names were called. Perhaps you need a screen bigger than a Nexus?
You said his logic was typical liberal BS.
Semantics...That is not name calling, that is analysis of his logic. Just like he said my logic was faulty, he was not calling me faulty.
Semantics...
Keep it civil is the only thing important.
Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk
Your logic is typical liberal BS, going after the person who has money instead of the person who wronged you.
FFL did nothing wrong, and should not even be part of discussion. CAI made the broken gun, CAI refused to make things right. FFL is just the mailman delivering the refund from CAI to the customer.
Really?
That is bare bones logic right there.
I can't make it any more simple than that. I wish I could
The FFL sold faulty goods to HIS customer.
The customer is now out money with nothing to show for it.
If a grocery store sells a banana to a customer that ends up being rotten, should the customer call the farmer?
My logic has to do with basic contracts.
OP agreed to exchange American dollars for a functional firearm.
The FFL agreed to supply a functional firearm in exchange for money.
One of the two parties involved didn't hold up their end of the deal.
What was basic contract OP had with FFL? Hmmm. You forgot to mention that. I bet it mentioned things like, As Is, No returns, All sales final, and all warrantee work performed by MFG/ Imported. Common things 99.99% of all guns stores do.
Even if OP/FFL contract agree to repair/replace, OP would have had to give gun to FFL for that to happen, not ship it off to third party.
Here is what OP had to say about FFL
In the grand scheme of things they have done everything right
Importer should have imported a proper functioning firearm.
Should FFL have test fired it? That would have been better due diligence IMO
Buyer should have gone to FFL first, especially since it was an importer, not a manufacturer that they are dealing with.