do not shop home depot

Page 2 of 6  


Amen, brother. Going to Home Depot and bitching about things is like going to a whore house and complaining about the behavior.
Steve
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

You're beating up a strawman, asshole. I never made any such statement. I was simply attacking your statement that it incredibly difficult for a company to contact a customer.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 11:02:49 -0800, Bill snipped-for-privacy@home.com wrote:

He didn't know he didn't like it until now.

Their policies are superceded by the law.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Nope. No such law.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bill snipped-for-privacy@home.com wrote:

Of course there is. The UCC sales article. Law in 49 states (loiuisiamna is wierd.) In the OP's described scenario, HD shipped non confoming goods. Buyer has an absolute riht to reject. HD may have compounded the "error" by not providing writtn notice of the non conformance and detals of the non conformance -- i.e. it was a cheapr machne with fewer features han he one speciallydered.
HD gets to pick up the non conforming machin, eats all transport and install / uninstall costs, gives the buyer a full refund, and pays the buyer the price difference if the buyer choses to "cover" by obtaining the full featured machne elsewhere at a price highere than HD was selling the undelivered full featured model.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I left enough for context. Quit whining.

he fucked up.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 10:16:02 -0800, Bill snipped-for-privacy@home.com wrote:

Who gives a damn what they hate. They chose to go into business. They can't use inconvencence of their hates to to justify palming off something that the customer didn't order.

They didn't deliver what was ordered. The law covers that and supercedes their self-centered return policy.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Nonsense. If a store has a policy that states they sub and the customers has an obligation to REFUSE delivery if they don't want the item that is well within the law.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 21:28:36 -0800, Bill snipped-for-privacy@home.com wrote:

The law is not a jackass. It recognizes the reality of situations.
One can't reject a substitution by looking at the crate. And if the truck driver opened the crate and installed the washer, and the customer called to say it's not a valid substitution, within a reasonable time, he will win in court. Assuming the rest of the facts are pretty much like he said, and you're not saying they're not.
I don't what the law says about charging him a (second, I think) delivery charge for having to come and pick up the washer to remove it. If he had rejected it immediately, they could have taken it with them, but otoh, the whole problem flows out of their sending a substitute which the manager told him had the same features as the one he ordered. It didn't. It was the store's mistake, and he's not going to have to pay for or keep the washer. Although he will have to keep it in the same condition as when delivered.
I'm not at all sure they can't recrate it. If the original crate is ruined or thrown away, they can be careful with the next washer and preserve that crate and use it. But if the washer is now a "demonstator" or floor model, and they lose money on it, it all flows out of hte store's mistake.
While people have the image that the law very often causes injustices, and that people have to be perfect in their behaviour, the only sometimes causes injustices, and people don't have to be perfect. They often just have to be more right than the other side.
There used to be courts of law and courts of equity. (There used to be "attorneys at law" and "attorneys at equity".) They were merged a couple hundred years ago, more or less, and all civil courts are supposed to do equity in places and cases where equity is appropriate. Equity is basically equivalent to fairness. The law is not a jackass.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The OP had already talked to customer service about the substitution BEFORE it was shipped. Why not cancel then? Sure they told him it was virtually an identical machine but it's up to him to check that. He could have easily checked the features of the machine on the manufacturers website. He didn't need to accept delivery and rip open the crate. He KNEW he was getting a sub. Why didn't he check out the model BEFORE accepting delivery?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
A second answer to another post, followed by an answer to this post:
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 21:29:21 -0800, Bill snipped-for-privacy@home.com wrote:

You're right there is no such law that says a store can't make substitutions.
There are innumerable situations, and more created every day, where people disagree and it's not possible to itemize every one of them in the statute books. There are a lot more examples in the reported case law, but still nowhere near all the situations.
But there is a law that covers this. What the law in every state's statutes says is that when there is a contract, both sides have to fulfill the promises they made in the contract. The customer promised to pay and the store promised to deliver a certain washing machine. The store then assured the customer that the substitution had the same features as the model ordered. If this had been true, they would have had an accord and satisfaction. Since it doesn't have the same features, they have not fulfilled the original contract or the accord. The customer has a reasonable time to determine that the accord has not been satisified. He went back to the store the very same day it was delivered. That is certainly within a reasonable time.
This is not the kind of situation that contractors among others face sometimes. They find out after work is done that the client and the contractor were thinking of different things, BUT the contractor has already done valuable work. In that case, the contractor is, if not payable according to the terms of the contract, at least owed quantum meruit, how much he merited, the reasonable value of the work he did that the customer wanted or decided to use. But in this case here the work part is only the delivery and that can be undone easily. So the remedy is to remove the washer and refund the money, minus perhaps one extra pickup or delivery charge. If the customer says, I"ll keep this one if you refund this many dollars, and they reach an agreement, that is fine too, but it is the customer's option, and I don't think he'll do it in this case.
More below.
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 02:23:04 -0800, Bill snipped-for-privacy@home.com wrote:

Because he was told it had the same features. He's allowed to rely on the word of an employee. The employee is an agent or at least the apparent agent** of the principal. The principal is the store.
**That is, maybe this particular employee doesn't have the authority to answer questions that customers ask. But the customer doesnt' know that. All he knows is that he answered the phone or appeared in the department and answered his questions. The employee has apparent authority from the customer's pov. He probably also had real authority to answer questions as the agent of the store. Agency is rarely even an issue when someone is an employee.

No, it isn't. He's allowed to rely on the word of an employee, especially one who works in the appliance department. If you could show that the guy worked in the garden department and it was apparent he worked in the garden department and not the appliance department, and he didnt' ask anyone or look up the two model numbers and compare the features, and said, "Well, I suppose the features are the same", that the customer cannot rely on that. But that was not the case here.

He relied on the word of a company employee who knew or should have known if it had the same features. That is good enough. He has NO obligation to go to the maker's website. It might have saved him inconvenience, but he has no obligation to the store to have better information than the store does. The store is responsible for fulfilling its side of the contract.
If you own a store, maybe you wouldn't like the law some time. If otoh you are a customer who would tolerate this, I guess it is good for the rest of us that the store doesn't lose any money on you which they would try to make up on the rest of the customers.
The law does not place horrible burdens on commerce, it does not depend on people's reaction always being perfect. Stores and various parties might have you believe that that is the case, so that you won't complain, but it isn't so.
(In another post I said "[the law] only sometimes causes injustices, and people don't have to be perfect. They often just have to be more right than the other side." There are not merely imperfect but bad things that one side can do that will preclude its recovering on the basis of equity. The plaintiff has to have "clean hands". If he was breaking the law, he's unlikely to be able to win. If one was cheated buying illegal drugs, the court won't hear the case, even if the plaintfif is more right than the other side. But the OP here didnt' do anything to give himself unclean hands, and I think this is a straightforward case in law anyhow. I don't think it is required to bring equity into it.)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

In this case it doesn't matter. The OP AGREED to the substitution BEFORE the washer was shipped. He will have to prove the sales person LIED/ or was in error about the machines features and I doubt even that would matter to a judge.
Good luck with that. I doubt he even knows the name of the person to whom he was speaking.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 12:09:36 -0800, Bill snipped-for-privacy@home.com wrote:

His word is evidence. You don't always need documentaru evidence. The court will believe him unless he presents himself somehow as a liar or sleaze, because most people wouldn't accept a substitution that was missing even one major feature, unless maybe there was discount, but no discount was offerred.
In those substitutions you talk about at sears, didn't they have all the features the ones that they were substituting for had? If stores substitute with the latest model that has all the features and maybe more, customers don't complain.
A problem could be when the sub had 3 improvements and 3 of the opposite, or 3 improvements and 1 of the opposite. Or they say it is an improvement and the customer things it is the opposite. Then an impartial judge might decide if the sub is as good as the original. Not so much with an appliance but with many kinds of contracts, it can be adviseable to say -- unfortunately I forget the standard legal term -- "It shall be a substantive clause of this contract that the band will turn down the volume of music when requested by the bride, groom, or the father of the bride or groom". But substantive might not be the right word. I've always wondered who wants the band playing so loud at many weddings etc. I get the feeling it's the band itself and not those who hired them.
Or one might put in "time is of the essence" if delivery must be made on time.
But here, no mention of any improvements was offered, and the absence of a gentle cycle is certainly a "deprovement". My ex told me today that she never uses anything but the gentle cycle except for sheets.
(Should a real man be talking about laundry?)

Maybe not. In something like this, he should have gotten the name, but he complained within the day, and I think he'll win, unless he does something else to mess up his case. (See people often on tv court shows, and the judge asks for some paper, and the litigant says, "I don't have it with me.")
Whether he can prove his case is not the same question as whether, if the judge believes him, he'll win the case.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
See especially section 2-608, below. The whole section is relevant, and pretty much says what I have said.
Copy to the OP with the reminder that I'm going by what he said, and assuming he didn't leave out anything important.
It does seem hard to believe that they would behave the way the OP describes since they are so sure to lose. But the catch here is that "they" didn't do anything. Things are done by one, two, or three people, who aren't always as reasonable or as informed as their bosses would want.
Maybe the OP was combative on the phone with the main office, and the person retaliated by brushing him off, maybe by not even listening to whether his complaint was valid. Maybe lots of things.
And maybe the op would lose because he loses the contract or the receipt or has no evidence about what they sent, or what he wanted. Etc. Suing is a pain in the neck, but when one wins, it feels real good. Also, be willing to let them make amends after you file suit but before the trial. In many cases, especially landlord tenant, one cannot accept the assurance of the other party that they are dropping the case. Landlords have been known to accept the rent, or partial rent according to their calculations and leave a tenant with the impression that everything is settled. Meanwhile, they go to court, the tenant doesn't, and the ll receives a default eviction order. Here though, if he has his washer in his house, he's probably safe, especially since he was the plaintiff, and he would have to be notified if a counter suit had been filed.
So, based on what he said:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/search/display.html?terms=substitute&url=/ucc/2/article2.htm#s2-712
This is not directly on point, and I only offer it because it uses the term "justifiably revokes acceptance". So there are times when one can justifiably revoke acceptance.
2-712. "Cover"; Buyer's Procurement of Substitute Goods.
(1) If the seller wrongfully fails to deliver or repudiates or the buyer rightfully rejects or justifiably revokes acceptance, the buyer may .....
This is from the Uniform Commercial Code. There have been uniform codes written on most parts of the law, but the UCC is the most accepted. It has been enacted in all 50 states, or maybe it was 49, and a few states have made a few changes, but almost the entire code is in effect in all 49 or 50 states. I think that is possible because there aren't too many emotional issues regarding commerce, and because it makes interstate commerce a lot easier when there is no conflict of laws. Every state legistlature wants its state to fully participate in interstate commerce.
The online version I'm citing doesn't include notes, because it says, it's license doesn't permit displaying notes. Reading the notes would help to understand things, and might give a case on point or close, but I don't think it's necessary.
Here is another relevant section that one can reach by . It has to be read as a whole, because it can be misleading to cite just one sentence without looking at the rest. Also one must know all the relevant laws including those not in the UCC or it can be misleading. That's why others are lawyers and we're not. But here is this part.
See especially section 2-608. The whole section is relevant:
" 2-607. Effect of Acceptance; Notice of Breach; Burden of Establishing Breach After Acceptance; Notice of Claim or Litigation to Person Answerable Over.
(1) The buyer must pay at the contract rate for any goods accepted.
(2) Acceptance of goods by the buyer precludes rejection of the goods accepted and if made with knowledge of a non-conformity cannot be revoked because of it unless the acceptance was on the reasonable assumption that the non-conformity would be seasonably cured but acceptance does not of itself impair any other remedy provided by this Article for non-conformity.
(3) Where a tender has been accepted
(a) the buyer must within a reasonable time after he discovers or should have discovered any breach notify the seller of breach or be barred from any remedy; and
(b) [definitely not relevant imo] if the claim is one for infringement or the like (subsection (3) of Section 2-312) and the buyer is sued as a result of such a breach he must so notify the seller within a reasonable time after he receives notice of the litigation or be barred from any remedy over for liability established by the litigation.
(4) The burden is on the buyer to establish any breach with respect to the goods accepted.
(5) Where the buyer is sued for breach of a warranty or other obligation for which his seller is answerable over
(a) he may give his seller written notice of the litigation. If the notice states that the seller may come in and defend and that if the seller does not do so he will be bound in any action against him by his buyer by any determination of fact common to the two litigations, then unless the seller after seasonable receipt of the notice does come in and defend he is so bound.
(b) if the claim is one for infringement or the like (subsection (3) of Section 2-312) the original seller may demand in writing that his buyer turn over to him control of the litigation including settlement or else be barred from any remedy over and if he also agrees to bear all expense and to satisfy any adverse judgment, then unless the buyer after seasonable receipt of the demand does turn over control the buyer is so barred.
(6) The provisions of subsections (3), (4) and (5) apply to any obligation of a buyer to hold the seller harmless against infringement or the like (subsection (3) of Section 2-312).
2-608. Revocation of Acceptance in Whole or in Part.
(1) The buyer may revoke his acceptance of a lot or commercial unit whose non-conformity substantially impairs its value to him if he has accepted it
(a) on the reasonable assumption that its non-conformity would be cured and it has not been seasonably cured; or
(b) without discovery of such non-conformity if his acceptance was reasonably induced either by the difficulty of discovery before acceptance or by the seller's assurances.
(2) Revocation of acceptance must occur within a reasonable time after the buyer discovers or should have discovered the ground for it and before any substantial change in condition of the goods which is not caused by their own defects. It is not effective until the buyer notifies the seller of it.
(3) A buyer who so revokes has the same rights and duties with regard to the goods involved as if he had rejected them.
(4) If a buyer uses the goods after a rightful rejection or justifiable revocation of acceptance, the following rules apply:
(a) Any use by the buyer that is unreasonable under the circumstances is wrongful as against the seller and is an acceptance only if ratified by the seller.
(b) Any use of the goods that is reasonable under the circumstances is not wrongful as against the seller and is not an acceptance, but in an appropriate case the buyer is obligated to the seller for the value of the use to the buyer."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

VEry interesting. I just noticed that it says "it's value **to him**" which means if the court is convinced he wants a gentle cycle, the court has to give more importance to the fact that he wants a gentle cycle than the fact, if it is so, that some other people don't want one.
I bet there is some catch on that machine that is more expensive than two others but doesn't have a gentle cycle. Perhaps it uses the same cycle but has an agitation speed control, and a wash and rinse time control. Isn't that the essence of the gentle cycle. Except in that one, they are individually adjustabble.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bill snipped-for-privacy@home.com writes:

Oh, come on. You're making up a bunch of worst case scenarios, and exaggerating them to boot. The store promised the guy a specific model and make of appliance, and when they didn't have it, all they had to do was call. If Sears, which has some seriously sad customer "service", could call me before delivering our new washer/dryer, then Home Depot can call people, too.

But spending money on labor and travel just to deliver the wrong appliance to a paying customer doesn't cost money? The customer is going to refuse the item, which wastes the employees' time. Or they'll demand a refund later, and the company has to go pick up the wrong appliance. They'll probably lose customers with that kind of crappy service, too.
Stacia
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 23:54:58 +0000 (UTC), snipped-for-privacy@xmission.com (Stacia) wrote:

They did call. They told him it was a different machine and he had them deliver it anyway.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 16:01:12 -0800, Bill snipped-for-privacy@home.com wrote:

Why do you always leave out the part where they told him it had the same features?
2-608. Revocation of Acceptance in Whole or in Part.
(1) The buyer may revoke his acceptance of a lot or commercial unit whose non-conformity substantially impairs its value to him if he has accepted it
(a) on the reasonable assumption that its non-conformity would be cured and it has not been seasonably cured; or
(b) without discovery of such non-conformity if his acceptance was reasonably induced either by the difficulty of discovery before ------------------------------------- acceptance or by the seller's assurances. ---------- --------------------------
[Both apply.]
(2) Revocation of acceptance must occur within a reasonable time after the buyer discovers or should have discovered the ground for it and before any substantial change in condition of the goods which is not caused by their own defects. It is not effective until the buyer notifies the seller of it.
(3) A buyer who so revokes has the same rights and duties with regard to the goods involved as if he had rejected them.
(4) If a buyer uses the goods after a rightful rejection or justifiable revocation of acceptance, the following rules apply:
(a) Any use by the buyer that is unreasonable under the circumstances is wrongful as against the seller and is an acceptance only if ratified by the seller.
(b) Any use of the goods that is reasonable under the circumstances is not wrongful as against the seller and is not an acceptance, but in an appropriate case the buyer is obligated to the seller for the value of the use to the buyer.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

We don't know if that's true.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
writes:

Not sure where you live, but my Home Depot is so short handed, I think working 8 days a week is a requirement.
Steve
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.