V Day 20% off Auto Atlanta order, left hanging in the wind Options

[al weidman]

It's a cold rainy day here in N. Calif. As I was scrolling through the posts, I said "Wow, that has allot of hits" After reading the whole 11 pages, I can really only say that after many years in business, a little humility goes along way. Secondly, I want to say that, you are not who you think you are, but, who others think you are. Think about it. Al.

[ericread]

Since we are being philosophical, here's a few to think about:

"You are what you think, not what you think you are."

"Man may think that he is great, but so long as he continues to think small thoughts, he will continue to be small."

"Man becomes great when he thinks great thought."

So if I proclaim myself King, am I King because that's what I think; Am I great because I am not thinking small, or; Am I great because I think great thoughts?

Hmmmmmmm (IMG:style_emoticons/default/idea.gif)

I think we may need to rethink this thread. There is a possibility that George is great as a sole result of his proclamation of being king.

Sheesh, some of you must be really embarrassed about now...


(IMG:style_emoticons/default/popcorn[1].gif)

[ConeDodger]

Rob, no offense intended, but what is your motivation to make this thread bigger than the last few AA threads. Almost half the posts are yours and you seem to want to debate everyone. And this is from someone who has ordered from George once and last talked to him 5 years ago.

If you quit posting, this thread would die very quickly.

T.C.

I have no motivation whatsoever T.C., I just simply want him to tell us what his reason is when so many have shown him so clearly that George and AA were not in the wrong why he still thinks he has been wronged. Besides, I have only 31 out of 223 posts so not really half...

George may have done everything else in his life wrong, I wouldn't know - but this sale seems to have gone down exactly as he said. He shouldn't have mud thrown at him for that...

I have left him to come up with an answer which doesn't seem to be coming so I expect the thread will die on its own waiting for his answer.

[ericread]

It should be obvious to all....


THIS THREAD WILL NEVER DIE!!!!!

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/stirthepot.gif)

[DBCooper]

Wow, a whole lot of arrogance in the air around here. For good order's sake, quote:

A contract is formed when competent parties -- usually adults of sound mind or business entities -- mutually agree to provide each other some benefit (called consideration), such as a promise to pay money in exchange for a promise to deliver specified goods or services or the actual delivery of those goods and services. A contract normally requires one party to make a reasonably detailed offer to do something -- including, typically, the price, time for performance and other essential terms and conditions -- and the other to accept without significant change. Unquote.

In this situation his order was the offer, and the order confirmation was AA's acceptance of that offer. That equals contract, by any definition I'm aware of. And at that point the "sale" conditions were irrelevant. The reason is that anyone can make any offer at any time in any situation, in accordance or not with anything in any context. If that offer is accepted the parties have a contract, again regardless of context, sale conditions or not. Once in place that contract contains the entire terms of the agreement, and you can't just add them later saying "he should have known!". You see I actually did take that contract law class. Right before deciding I didn't really want to be a lawyer. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

It could be that the wording of the confirmation contained exclusions, I don't know, but order confirmations are usually perfunctory, referring at most to the vendor's standard conditions of sale. Again, and I repeat, this is so petty it would never go to court, so it's really only evidence of extremely sloppy business practices. George creates problems for himself that are totally unnecessary.

[r_towle]

Its true that alot of people have some pretty divisive points of view of George and how he conducts business.
That is the great thing about our country, and capitalism...we get the right to choose who we do business with.

As far as Georges comments, you really should put into perspective three important things.
1.. Humor and sarcasm rarely make it through in print.
2...East coast humor is "in your face" humor, I cant figure out west coast humor...
3...George will never apologise for any of this, so stop trying.

His business practices are his to determine, no one else has the right to tell him how to run his business, period...even if you think you should say something...it really does not matter.

Now, Once more, break time...here was my dinner.
BTW, my daughter WON the semi finals in BBall today...the finals are next week
There are only two teams left, Us and them.

Rich

[KELTY360]

Wow, a whole lot of arrogance in the air around here. For good order's sake, quote:

A contract is formed when competent parties -- usually adults of sound mind or business entities -- mutually agree to provide each other some benefit (called consideration), such as a promise to pay money in exchange for a promise to deliver specified goods or services or the actual delivery of those goods and services. A contract normally requires one party to make a reasonably detailed offer to do something -- including, typically, the price, time for performance and other essential terms and conditions -- and the other to accept without significant change. Unquote.

In this situation his order was the offer, and the order confirmation was AA's acceptance of that offer. That equals contract, by any definition I'm aware of. And at that point the "sale" conditions were irrelevant. The reason is that anyone can make any offer at any time in any situation, in accordance or not with anything in any context. If that offer is accepted the parties have a contract, again regardless of context, sale conditions or not. Once in place that contract contains the entire terms of the agreement, and you can't just add them later saying "he should have known!". You see I actually did take that contract law class. Right before deciding I didn't really want to be a lawyer. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

It could be that the wording of the confirmation contained exclusions, I don't know, but order confirmations are usually perfunctory, referring at most to the vendor's standard conditions of sale. Again, and I repeat, this is so petty it would never go to court, so it's really only evidence of extremely sloppy business practices. George creates problems for himself that are totally unnecessary.

Actually, I believe that George made the offer; to sell any catalog item, in his inventory, at a 20% discount from list price. By placing an order for a fuzzy dash cover, Johnnie5 accepted that offer, with all the conditions that were placed at the time the offer was made. When the item was not available from inventory, the order (acceptance) was canceled per the existing terms. I took one of those contract law classes also. The beauty of the law is that there's so many ways to skin the cat. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[ericread]

Wow, a whole lot of arrogance in the air around here. For good order's sake, quote:

A contract is formed when competent parties -- usually adults of sound mind or business entities -- mutually agree to provide each other some benefit (called consideration), such as a promise to pay money in exchange for a promise to deliver specified goods or services or the actual delivery of those goods and services. A contract normally requires one party to make a reasonably detailed offer to do something -- including, typically, the price, time for performance and other essential terms and conditions -- and the other to accept without significant change. Unquote.

In this situation his order was the offer, and the order confirmation was AA's acceptance of that offer. That equals contract, by any definition I'm aware of. And at that point the "sale" conditions were irrelevant. The reason is that anyone can make any offer at any time in any situation, in accordance or not with anything in any context. If that offer is accepted the parties have a contract, again regardless of context, sale conditions or not. Once in place that contract contains the entire terms of the agreement, and you can't just add them later saying "he should have known!". You see I actually did take that contract law class. Right before deciding I didn't really want to be a lawyer. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

It could be that the wording of the confirmation contained exclusions, I don't know, but order confirmations are usually perfunctory, referring at most to the vendor's standard conditions of sale. Again, and I repeat, this is so petty it would never go to court, so it's really only evidence of extremely sloppy business practices. George creates problems for himself that are totally unnecessary.

I agree with the premise. However, consideration is not the "promise to pay", but predicated upon a payment being made. If you purchase a car, you will normally be required to make a payment of at least one dollar, so that the "consideration" requirement has been made.

In this case, it is unclear that any consideration had been paid by the buyer. The original poster never mentioned that his credit card had been billed, however, a third-party dis-interested party claimed that the credit card was indeed billed.

If, in fact, the credit card had not been billed, then no "consideration" had been perfected, and a legal contract had not been completed.

Had the credit card been billed, consideration had been perfected, and the buyer has a cause for a "specific performance" lawsuit. This lawsuit's best result would ensure the the item was provided at purchase at the specified price. Not much of a reward for the cost of a lawsuit.

Eric

[r_towle]

Wow, a whole lot of arrogance in the air around here. For good order's sake, quote:

A contract is formed when competent parties -- usually adults of sound mind or business entities -- mutually agree to provide each other some benefit (called consideration), such as a promise to pay money in exchange for a promise to deliver specified goods or services or the actual delivery of those goods and services. A contract normally requires one party to make a reasonably detailed offer to do something -- including, typically, the price, time for performance and other essential terms and conditions -- and the other to accept without significant change. Unquote.

In this situation his order was the offer, and the order confirmation was AA's acceptance of that offer. That equals contract, by any definition I'm aware of. And at that point the "sale" conditions were irrelevant. The reason is that anyone can make any offer at any time in any situation, in accordance or not with anything in any context. If that offer is accepted the parties have a contract, again regardless of context, sale conditions or not. Once in place that contract contains the entire terms of the agreement, and you can't just add them later saying "he should have known!". You see I actually did take that contract law class. Right before deciding I didn't really want to be a lawyer. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

It could be that the wording of the confirmation contained exclusions, I don't know, but order confirmations are usually perfunctory, referring at most to the vendor's standard conditions of sale. Again, and I repeat, this is so petty it would never go to court, so it's really only evidence of extremely sloppy business practices. George creates problems for himself that are totally unnecessary.

I agree with the premise. However, consideration is not the "promise to pay", but predicated upon a payment being made. If you purchase a car, you will normally be required to make a payment of at least one dollar, so that the "consideration" requirement has been made.

In this case, it is unclear that any consideration had been paid by the buyer. The original poster never mentioned that his credit card had been billed, however, a third-party dis-interested party claimed that the credit card was indeed billed.

If, in fact, the credit card had not been billed, then no "consideration" had been perfected, and a legal contract had not been completed.

Had the credit card been billed, consideration had been perfected, and the buyer has a cause for a "specific performance" lawsuit. This lawsuit's best result would ensure the the item was provided at purchase at the specified price. Not much of a reward for the cost of a lawsuit.

Eric

To add more intrigue here...Internet case precidence is alot newer than your case law class, sad to say.
The existing cases regarding online transactions do tend to rule in favor of the business in these types of sales.
There was no bait and switch.
There was no misleading advertising.
There was no fraud.

There was a consumer trying to take advantage of a miscommunication.
This is viewed in the "average man" class and would conclude that the business, in this case AA, did nothing wrong and that any average man, with normal reading skills, could have understood the terms and conditions.

While you have taken one law class, I have dealt with this in court. I am not a lawyer, but I know how this works.
If the consumer is trying to take advantage of an automated part of the internet transaction system that does not line up and work as the "terms of sale" specify, the business is not at fault.
Most of these cases never make it to court...they are the types of cases that make me a firm believer in Tort reform in this country.

AA did nothing illegal, nor immoral. The initial customer that started this thread feels burned, but they did not read the terms of the sale.

Rich

[RJMII]

Now, Once more, break time...here was my dinner.
BTW, my daughter WON the semi finals in BBall today...the finals are next week
There are only two teams left, Us and them.

Rich

Congrats on her win! That is awesome! Tell her we're rootin' for her. =o)

[mbrown3039]

you should change your name to buttlicker.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/newhere.gif) Bzzzzzz (IMG:style_emoticons/default/banned.gif)

So, SirAndy, why is it OK to talk about Toast's tits (their word, not mine) in my post entitled "OH MY GOD!" (about Renegade's newest V8 machine) but it's not OK for 'Stevl8' to voice his opinion about Rob? I'm just curious what the standards are so I can stay on the safe side of the 914World PC line. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/WTF.gif) , Mike

[ConeDodger]

you should change your name to buttlicker.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/newhere.gif) Bzzzzzz (IMG:style_emoticons/default/banned.gif)

So, SirAndy, why is it OK to talk about Toast's tits (their word, not mine) in my post entitled "OH MY GOD!" (about Renegade's newest V8 machine) but it's not OK for 'Stevl8' to voice his opinion about Rob? I'm just curious what the standards are so I can stay on the safe side of the 914World PC line. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/WTF.gif) , Mike

In the nailed threads at the top of the page see "Our Mission Statement, Rules & Logo Policy".

[mbrown3039]

you should change your name to buttlicker.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/newhere.gif) Bzzzzzz (IMG:style_emoticons/default/banned.gif)

So, SirAndy, why is it OK to talk about Toast's tits (their word, not mine) in my post entitled "OH MY GOD!" (about Renegade's newest V8 machine) but it's not OK for 'Stevl8' to voice his opinion about Rob? I'm just curious what the standards are so I can stay on the safe side of the 914World PC line. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/WTF.gif) , Mike

In the nailed threads at the top of the page see "Our Mission Statement, Rules & Logo Policy".

Well, I guess calling you a buttlicker would fall under the "don't call anyone names" category, but wouldn't the rest of that rule ("treat other members like your mother taught you...") apply to the posts about Toast's anatomy? Mike

[SirAndy]

So, SirAndy, why is it OK to talk about Toast's tits (their word, not mine) in my post entitled "OH MY GOD!" (about Renegade's newest V8 machine) but it's not OK for 'Stevl8' to voice his opinion about Rob? I'm just curious what the standards are so I can stay on the safe side of the 914World PC line. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/WTF.gif) , Mike

First post, doesn't have a 914, never heard of AA before this thread, didn't add anything that hadn't already been thrown around and then proceeds to call members names ...
Obviously, he only came here to stir up some (IMG:style_emoticons/default/stromberg.gif)

That was a no-brainer to me, didn't even think twice about hitting the "banned" button.


As for Toast's Tits, i have no clue why anyone would have a problem with them?
(IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif) Andy

PS: I never read that thread, so i don't know what you are referencing. If it has something in it that offends you, you might want to contact an admin about it.

[mbrown3039]

So, SirAndy, why is it OK to talk about Toast's tits (their word, not mine) in my post entitled "OH MY GOD!" (about Renegade's newest V8 machine) but it's not OK for 'Stevl8' to voice his opinion about Rob? I'm just curious what the standards are so I can stay on the safe side of the 914World PC line. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/WTF.gif) , Mike

First post, doesn't have a 914, never heard of AA before this thread, didn't add anything that hadn't already been thrown around and then proceeds to call members names ...
Obviously, he only came here to stir up some (IMG:style_emoticons/default/stromberg.gif)

That was a no-brainer to me, didn't even think twice about hitting the "banned" button.


As for Toast's Tits, i have no clue why anyone would have a problem with them?
(IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif) Andy

PS: I never read that thread, so i don't know what you are referencing. If it has something in it that offends you, you might want to contact an admin about it.

Oh....I thought I had. I figured since you banned the other guy, you must be an Admin. My mistake. Mike

[DBCooper]

Lots of people using lots of big words about concepts that they obviously aren't all that comfortable with. Hmmm....

Let's simplify: No vendor should be afraid of getting feedback. If they are then they themselves already know something's wrong. My opinion.

[dw914er]

I think andy is a retired Admin, though because of the technical work he does here, he still has some power... idk... hasn't affected me so I never paid attention


I think he said message an admin if it did bother you. He doesn't read *every* thread, and unless the alleged "tits" bothered you, then make a formal complaint to an admin (maybe it could be andy, or whoever). If not, then whatever.

as for the friend, he was here to just stir the pot, and was being counterproductive to the site and annoying to the members. People who have been here have more leyway when it comes to arguments like this thread because well, they are here for more than arguing, but whatever..


Lets give it a rest, and wait a few months till the next Dr. 914 appointment. This one has passed its usefulness.

[ericread]

Die thread, die!!! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/blowup.gif)

[RJMII]

Die thread, die!!! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/blowup.gif)

NO!!!

where's the CPR smiley? one and two and three and four and five and one and two and three and four and ten and...

breathe!

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/av-943.gif)

[DBCooper]

Die thread, die!!! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/blowup.gif)

NO!!!

where's the CPR smiley? one and two and three and four and five and one and two and three and four and ten and...

breathe!

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/av-943.gif)

You're not having fun? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/happy11.gif)

Alright people, move along. Show's over, nothing more to see here so lets move it along.