do not shop home depot

What planet are you from? On this one, paper ones are very difficult to enforce.

Steve

Did you pay with a credit card?

That permits remedies short of adjudication.

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.

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.

And that contradicts the buyers version of the story, how?

The OP said that right up front.

Not really since both parties to the dispute actually agree on that particular point. Nothing needs to be proved there!

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

They did call. They told him it was a different machine and he had them deliver it anyway.

It's wrong of me to laugh so hard at this post, isn't it?

Stacia

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

(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).

(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."

Judge Judy is nothing like a real judge. She was chosen for being flamboyant and not judicial. She thinks everyone fits her 8 stereotpes about what people are like.

You must be kidding, because real court is nothing like her show.

Judge Wapner, the original People's Court judge, who actually went and found the appropriate statute and quoted it when he was on tv, just last week bemoaned how she misleads people about how real courts work. How she is abusive to some of the litigants.

And there was an episode of Diane Rehm about 2 years ago with a couple local law professors complaining about her show. They said court shows in general, but most of their comments applied to JJudy and maybe some others, and maybe none to the People's Court (although the guy in the lobby on that show is a jerk, routinely in effect calls people liars, and some day someone will be waiting for him when he leaves and will beat the tar out of him. But the other two are very good.)

Not enough.

See

They ARE just as enforceable, but they are harder to prove. Once proven, the difficulty of proving them is no longer an issue, unless the losing party can argue that as a matter of law, there is no contract. Matters of fact are not reviewable once the trial court has decided something, whether by judge or jury.

The exception is contracts for the purchase of land (and maybe other acts regarding land, I forget). They MUST be in writing. If interested, look up the Statute of Frauds.

He didn't say easy to enforce. He said just as enforceable. Court judgements against corporations with a fixed location and tangible assets are very easy to enforce. You tell the marshall to go and sieze something that the marshall can sell for more money that the other party owes you, and that's what he will do. Like he might take power tools whose value is two or three times the judgement plus the marshall's fee. The marshall has some way to sell this stuff and recoup themoney. Or HD pays the judgment and marshall's fees and gets its power tools back. If it is a bigger judgment they would take one of the HD rent-a-trucks.

But it doesn't come to that, because normal companies know what is coming next, and they pay in cash when they lose in court and have no basis to appeal.

"Malcolm Hoar" wrote

For the purposes of discussion here, I propose that we are talking apples and oranges. Yes, oral contracts are binding and enforceable, but probably only when witnesses are present. Other than that, it's one person's word against the other. And yes, we do make oral contracts all the time, a "gentleman's agreement" sealed with a handshake. Time once was when you could stake your life on the deal made, but times have changed, and people have changed. Taking someone to court or suing someone over an oral agreement made between two people would be something I don't believe would have high success rate.

Steve

Not sure where you live, but my Home Depot is so short handed, I think working 8 days a week is a requirement.

Steve

Adjudication?

I bet you know Arbitrary and Capricious

-- Oren

"Well, it doesn't happen all the time, but when it happens, it happens constantly."

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.

Why do you always leave out the part where they told him it had the same features?

(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.

We don't know if that's true.