Dick's Sporting Goods Customers Threaten Class Action Suit

A

Alabama Shooter

New member
Dicks may be in the courtroom for another class action suit. The long and short of it is that they are not going to honor purchases agreements made since Thanksgiving. So if you have something on order from them you might check on it.

http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarne...oods-faces-customer-outrage-over-gun-ban.html

Seems dirty to me. I am guessing they got caught short in the ordering of rifles and now that the prices are way up they are facing losses. That is just a guess on though.
 
Posted on Dick's Facebook page:

I was in of a group of vets discussing Dick’s at the Patrick AFB gym this week. No one is going to buy anything at Dick’s as long as you maintain your anti-gun policy.
We support the Constitution. You don’t. We’ll spend our money elsewhere.
 
Yep. Everyone wants to claim to be some sort of victim. When in doubt, threat to sue or sue, but what are the damages, as Tom points out.

I found this comment from the article cited interesting...

“What makes this situation even more frustrating is that I am a law enforcement officer and purchased this rifle specifically to use while on duty,” a gun owner told Military Times. “My agency allows us to carry rifles, but cannot afford to issue one to every member.”
Click to expand...

As I recall from my police friends, LEO discounts through the manufacturer or wholesale vendors are often substantial and certainly better than what your typical individual could do buying retail from Dick's. I think this officer might have been done a favor.
 
I don't think plaintiffs would have any chance of winning. If you ordered an AR last month and tried to order the same one today you certainly would be out some extra cash.
 
Alabama Shooter said:
I don't think plaintiffs would have any chance of winning. If you ordered an AR last month and tried to order the same one today you certainly would be out some extra cash.
Click to expand...
I would expect that to be the focus of the suit, and the price difference will be the damages. To me it looks like a simple breach of contract case. Dick's took money from customers and made a promise to deliver a specific firearm in exchange. Now Dick's doesn't want to produce the firearms.

I hate Dick's. This just adds yet another reason.
 
I simply stopped doing business with Dick's Sporting – a few bad quarters and the knuckleheads that made this decision will be gone and replaced with clear headed executivces.

Boycott Dick’s and their liberal agenda
 
Tom Servo, I am not an attorney, but I would think the approach would be:

I could have bought elsewhere for $900.

Dick's only wanted $850, so I bought from them, not the other seller.

Dick's took my money; a contract was made.

Now, Dick's has refunded my money, but breached the contract; other sources now cost $1300. Dick's breach cost me $400, so I want $400 plus court costs.
 
Troy industries certianly have a good case for a lawsuit. They lost big time on their AR introduction which was taking place through Dick's sporting goods.
 
If I were Troy I would sue for the list of customers with whom Dicks broke their contract and sell directly to them. This would solve everyone's problem quite quickly and cut Dicks right out of the picture.
 
MLeake said:
Tom Servo, I am not an attorney, but I would think the approach would be:

I could have bought elsewhere for $900.

Dick's only wanted $850, so I bought from them, not the other seller.

Dick's took my money; a contract was made.

Now, Dick's has refunded my money, but breached the contract; other sources now cost $1300. Dick's breach cost me $400, so I want $400 plus court costs.
Click to expand...

That seems a correct analysis except for the last part. If Dick's had a contract to provide specific items, I would say that Dick's owes either the item or the full market price for the item whenever this matter is resolved.

If this were to resolve one year from now and that $900 item has risen to $9000, $400 would not be a sufficient remedy. On the other hand, if this blows over and the market is awash in $700 ARs, there arguably is no damage.
 
On the other hand, if this blows over and the market is awash in $700 ARs, there arguably is no damage.
Click to expand...
That's probably going to be the situation by the time any case would be heard.

Others will have a better handle on this area of the law than I do, but consequential damages are a tricky area, and they're usually limited to 10% of the loss. So, if I paid $900 for a gun, Dick's refunded my money, and it would cost me $1300 to buy it elsewhere, I'd recover $40.

The cost of even talking the matter over with legal counsel dwarfs that. This also assumes I can prove significant hardship to the court in the first place.
 
Tom Servo said:
That's probably going to be the situation by the time any case would be heard.
Click to expand...

I very much hope so.

These matters will vary by state. In my state, where a vendor or has taken a deposit from a consumer, and fails to deliver the item within a reasonable time, the vendor may be exposing himself to treble damages and reasonable attorneys fees.

I do not know the facts of this situation, so my comment isn't anything like a legal condemnation of Dick's. If the fact of this situation is that the chain of supply so completely buggered that obtaining the ARs to fill very recent orders is not possible, then returning the deposits for recent orders seems reasonable. That is very much distinguishable from returning deposits on $850 orders so that the same items can be sold in new $1500 orders.

In some states, consumer protections are not written to be evenhanded, but to give the consumer considerable leverage.
 
If the fact of this situation is that the chain of supply so completely buggered that obtaining the ARs to fill very recent orders is not possible, then returning the deposits for recent orders seems reasonable.
Click to expand...

Troy says they were going to fill the orders.
 
Tom Servo said:
That's probably going to be the situation by the time any case would be heard.

Others will have a better handle on this area of the law than I do, but consequential damages are a tricky area, and they're usually limited to 10% of the loss. So, if I paid $900 for a gun, Dick's refunded my money, and it would cost me $1300 to buy it elsewhere, I'd recover $40.

The cost of even talking the matter over with legal counsel dwarfs that. This also assumes I can prove significant hardship to the court in the first place.
Click to expand...
I don't think the $400 loss in your example is consequential damages. The $400 is direct damages. An example of consequential damages, as I understand the concept, would be: Not only did I lose $400 because I had to pay more to buy the same gun from another source (the direct damages), I had a hunting trip planned that I had to cancel because of the difference in cost of the gun, and I lost the $500 non-refundable deposit I had put down to reserve the trip (the consequential damages).

So I should recover the full $400 in direct damages, and another $50 relating to the consequential damages of having to cancel the hunting trip.
 
As for the breech of contract notion, maybe, maybe not. Many store order forms have the noted caveat that if the ordered item cannot be obtained that a refund will be made to the customer. If Dick's had this on their forms, then they are covered so long as they either filled the order or refunded the money. There would be no breech of contract.
 
Double Naught: Just out of curiosity, on the caveat, does it make a difference if the store decides not to make it available?

It seems to me the store decided not to sell them, not because of a lack of availability, but because they were worried about their image. There are still plenty of rifles out there, they are just much more expensive.

Or is this the thing a judge would have to figure out? Thanks in advance for a reply.
 
I don't believe in class action suits, or the American penchant for suing for that matter. I do believe in acting with my wallet and will avoid future purchases at Dicks.
 
JWT said:
I don't believe in class action suits,...
Click to expand...

Believe in them? I've seen them! (This paraphrases an old joke about full immersion baptism)

When drawing juries in less urban areas of my state, I find there are generally several people who do not believe in the propriety of litigation as a means to a remedy.

Cynical people will say that this is a population smart enough to avoid jury service. However, my sense is that their reservations are genuine.
 
Double Naught: Just out of curiosity, on the caveat, does it make a difference if the store decides not to make it available?
Click to expand...

That would depend on the text of the agreement. My guess is that they have that covered to protect themselves against cost spikes or that they have the option to withdraw from the order and refund the money for any reason. In short, they don't have to fulfill and order if they refund the money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top