Luger disaster

[John Sabato]

Garfield,

Thanks for the thoughtful (and thought provoking)response. You and I are closer in opinion than you might imagine... I don't think there is any question of dealer liability for an item that is less than advertised... My position (as already stated) is that if the terms of the sale, three days inspection, had expired for a full refund, then the buyer has no recourse, and no gripe if the dealer isn't in a generous mood.

For a dealer, IMHO, the cost in public relations is high... not a price I would pay if I were in the business (which I am not), but some do.

I guess the question that will probably remain unanswered would be that if the defect had been reported within the three days, would there have been a refund in full... probably yes, less the shipping because that would also be part of the sales agreement.

The only protections that long distance "transactors" (I made that word up) have are the terms of the agreement to do business. This is the price of not doing business face to face (via the internet of phone)... because, as Brad Simpson has previously related, there is nothing that prevents an unscrupulous buyer from ordering a specific gun, and then removing parts that match somthing he already has, and then returning the gun within the inspection period, claiming it was unsatisfactory...

Once again... Caveat Emptor & Caveat Vendor...

thanks...