Defective pistol sold to me on GunBroker

You know, Sid, posting some photos of the frame and ejector would help this thread immensely.

After looking at my .22 cal. 948 which uses the exact same frame as all the other alloy-framed guns, I'm starting to have trouble dealing with your claim that the ejector is an integral part of the frame.
 
The answer is, it depends.

Did the seller, or did the seller not, make representations to you (written or verbal, but ideally written), that the gun worked "good", "fine", "well", "perfectly", or anything of the sort?

(1) If yes, then that's consumer fraud and is actionable *despite* the no-returns language.

(2) If no, then it's tough noogies / buyer beware, since the auction said no returns.

Well, I think in *most* states if not all 50 that is the answer. UCPA - Uniform Consumer Protection Act, as well as common law fraud (misrepresentation, known false, made with intent to deceive, for pecuniary gain) will protect you if you can prove up the misrepresentation (and the other elements). The common law against fraud is definitely applicable in all 50 states, even if no UCPA.
 
I think Sid has lost interest. He's posting in another thread about .25 ammo, but no response here.

I, for one, would still like to see some pictures of this integral ejector.
 
The OP never said the Beretta in question didn't work...just that his "gunsmith" said it was broke. He may have never even fired it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top