Concept Z Performance (CZP) will steal from you, literally.

[King Tut]

Originally Posted by ATaraxias

I'm a real unreasonable jerk, somebody call the internet police.

I pay vendors for products, and then, I actually expect them to be true to what they told me during the sale. Apparently, some customers dislike being lied to about product availability, especially when the product is currently in-stock with other vendors for the same price.

A lie implies that they purposely told you something they knew to be untrue. We don't have any proof that they did that. Just send them the part back, buy from CSG and get on with your life. Let us know what city you live in and perhaps we can get another FT86Club member to come to your house and box up the part and drop it at a FedEx so you aren't put out of all that valuable time.

[ATaraxias]

Originally Posted by spitfire481

Did you physically call other vendors to see if it was actually in hand? Almost everything automotive related is drop shipped now a days. They probably looked at turn 14 or something and it said "available", when really, it's not and there is an issue. Wouldn't be the first time that's happened

Yes, other vendors have the frontpipe currently in-stock.

Mike@CZP is entire able to source the frontpipe from a vendor who is not the manufacturer, still retain a profit margin and have the frontpipe to me by this weekend. He has simply elected to make a larger profit by sourcing only from the manufacturer, leading to a month(s) long delay in my receipt of the frontpipe.

That's why I'm unsatisfied with CZP. They pulled a flim-flam on product availability and still think they can make 100% anticipated profits by passing the problem on to their customer.

[why?]

Originally Posted by ATaraxias

Questions:
Why did you leave me negative trader feedback?
Do you really think "Would not accept refund. Unreasonable" is a fair way of describing this situation?
If I could get a full refund without doing your job for you, I would have already taken that option.

I think it is a truthful and complete way of describing this situation. You are being totally and completely unreasonable.

Have you ever bought something on the internet before? Crap happens. I have no idea who this vendor is, but he is literally doing the most any other vendor will ever do, and in fact many times Amazon and EBay will force you to pay shipping no matter what, even when they make a mistake. Many many companies will just say,"oops it is back ordered, nothing we can do." And leave it at that.

Originally Posted by ATaraxias

Did you really just suggest that Amazon or Ebay lie to customers about product availability, ship partial orders without warning and then tell the customer to drop it off at Kinko's on their own time if they don't like it?
Because that sounds very unlike either Amazon or Ebay. It sounds more like a fly-by-night dropshipping company which either doesn't communicate with its manufacturer or gets lied to and then passes the problem onto its customers.

Do you know what the word lie actually means? Or are you just trying to be totally unreasonable in hopes the vendor simply pays you off to be quiet?

In this world we live in most companies have zero actual product on hand and completely rely on manufacturers to drop ship products for them. Sometimes manufacturers screw up and make mistakes. It happens from Amazon, it happens from ebay, it happens from every vendor everywhere. That's just modern life. This vendor has done as much for you as Amazon does for its Amazon Prime customers and you are attacking him.

Originally Posted by ATaraxias

I'm a real unreasonable jerk, somebody call the internet police.
I pay vendors for products, and then, I actually expect them to be true to what they told me during the sale. Apparently, some customers dislike being lied to about product availability, especially when the product is currently in-stock with other vendors for the same price.

You weren't lied to, stop the bs. At this point no vendor on this website should ever take an order from you, you are being that unreasonable. I suggest you never order from anywhere online, you simply aren't going to be happy.

When a vendor says here is a label slap it onto a box, they are taking 100% responsibility, not you. If fedex screws up it is on fedex and the vendor, not you. When you drop the package off and fedex scans the label your liability completely ends. This is how the modern internet package return system works.

What happens to you happens to others constantly. Vendors make mistakes constantly. It sucks and they all do what this vendor does and people realize that is all that can be done and move on with their lives. This vendor has openly done exactly what every good vendor does.

Now the $50 dispute thing? I am sure there is a story behind that and I am sure they didn't do all the research they ought to to see if that policy is actually legal.

[Sportsguy83]

LOL I feel for you @Mike@CZP .

I think it's very clear you've been reasonable and provided enough options to satisfy the customer, even though refunding all money will result in some loss to you.

I will do business with you in the future

[ATaraxias]

Originally Posted by King Tut

A lie implies that they purposely told you something they knew to be untrue. We don't have any proof that they did that. Just send them the part back, buy from CSG and get on with your life. Let us know what city you live in and perhaps we can get another FT86Club member to come to your house and box up the part and drop it at a FedEx so you aren't put out of all that valuable time.

Actually, many forms of lying exist outside of malicious, intentional lying. "Reasonably ought to have known" is a common phrase in commercial law because it keeps intentional ignorance from being a defense to damages. For example, Mike reasonably ought to have known that his manufacturer has a months long delay in producing frontpipes because it impacts a material term (shipment date) of every sale he makes on that frontpipe from now until they are manufactured.


Legally, the proper remedy for the buyer (me) in this situation is to buy the part from another vendor, and then turn-around and send the original vendor (CZP) a bill for the price difference along with a bill for incidental damages. (§ 2-712. "Cover"; Buyer's Procurement of Substitute Goods.) By the way, commercial law does see "transportation and care and custody of goods rightfully rejected" as incidental damages. That's right, legally, "box it up yourself and take it to Kinko's" is completely flim-flam if requested by a seller. (§ 2-715. Buyer's Incidental and Consequential Damages.)


King Tut, you might be in the business of fixing other people's screw-ups for them for free, on your own time, on your own dime. Maybe you are a king among men, but don't get upset at the other men who refuse to act as you choose. I made a bargain, fulfilled my portion of the bargain and now I expect the benefit of my bargain. That's business, and commercial law agrees with me.

[MokSpeed]

In the time you've spent trying to make your case both on FT86 and with CZP, you could have already shipped the part back and collected a full refund. At this point I feel like you are just trying to "make a point" when it is clear that Mike has done everything in an attempt to rectify the situation.

[ATaraxias]

Originally Posted by MokSpeed

In the time you've spent trying to make your case both on FT86 and with CZP, you could have already shipped the part back and collected a full refund. At this point I feel like you are just trying to "make a point" when it is clear that Mike has done everything in an attempt to rectify the situation.

In the time that I've spent making my case, Mike could have already ordered the part from a vendor who has it in-stock for the same price as I paid him and completed the deal.


Why is Mike's screw-up my problem?

[MokSpeed]

Originally Posted by ATaraxias

In the time that I've spent making my case, Mike could have already ordered the part from a vendor who has it in-stock for the same price as I paid him and completed the deal.


Why is Mike's screw-up my problem?

You walk into Starbucks and ordered caramel flavored coffee. You pay for it and they make the coffee but unfortunately have to inform you that they are out of caramel at the moment. They offer to either refund the difference of the coffee without the caramel, allowing you to keep your product, or offer a full refund requesting you return the coffee currently in your possession. Your final option is to simply wait until their next shipment of caramel arrives in 3 days. You refuse all alternatives and state that they should walk next door to buy caramel from a grocery store or another competing coffee shop in order to fulfill your order completely. That is basically your situation to a lesser degree. The only person's time wasted in the end is your own. Think about it.

[ATaraxias]

Originally Posted by MokSpeed

You walk into Starbucks and ordered caramel flavored coffee. You pay for it and they make the coffee but unfortunately have to inform you that they are out of caramel at the moment. They offer to either refund the difference of the coffee without the caramel, allowing you to keep your product, or offer a full refund requesting you return the coffee currently in your possession. Your final option is to simply wait until their next shipment of caramel arrives in 3 days. You refuse all alternatives and state that they should walk next door to buy caramel from a grocery store or another competing coffee shop in order to fulfill your order completely. That is basically your situation to a lesser degree. The only person's time wasted in the end is your own. Think about it.

Am I within my rights under commercial law to go to the grocery store, buy the caramel myself, and then return to Starbucks with a bill for the caramel to complete my order? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cover_(law)) Because if I am, it seems unreasonable that Starbucks would decline to simply go and purchase the caramel themselves. Moreover, it seems unlikely that Starbucks will keep around a Barista who takes customer orders that cannot be filled in a timely manner.

But more importantly, the transaction reversal is instantaneous in your hypothetical. However, the transaction reversal in this case would take a minimum of one week, with two weeks being a more likely scenario. That puts us in early October, so then I order the parts from another vendor, another week goes by before they arrive. Now I'm in mid-October, when CZP says that Berk may begin shipping new frontpipes, and I'm getting the parts from another vendor. Doing a reversal of the transaction at this point is of little or no benefit to me.

Your hypothetical has no shipping transit time and that is why it is a flawed hypo.

[MokSpeed]

I'm the guy behind you in the coffee shop recording you while you rant.




Enjoying my coffee.

[ATaraxias]

Originally Posted by MokSpeed

I'm the guy behind you in the coffee shop recording you while you rant.




Enjoying my coffee.

Guess you didn't ask for caramel.

[why?]

unless you have a signed contract (with actual signatures, not reproductions) good luck with that so called commercial law. No agreement made over email, private messaging systems or any form of social media is legally binding.

Legally the proper remedy for you is to do what any other actually reasonable person would do in your situation, and that is slap the label on and go your own way. If you do not want to do this, stop whining.

No vendor anywhere should ever do business with you. When you made the agreement to purchase from a vendor you made an agreement to act rationally and reasonably if something goes wrong. You've failed miserably in that regard.

[ATaraxias]

Originally Posted by why?

unless you have a signed contract (with actual signatures, not reproductions) good luck with that so called commercial law. No agreement made over email, private messaging systems or any form of social media is legally binding.

So, what you're saying is that you have literally no idea about what you are talking about.


Well played, squire.

[why?]

Originally Posted by ATaraxias

So, what you're saying is that you have literally no idea about what you are talking about.


Well played, squire.

uh yea no. Good luck finding any court anywhere that would force anyone to ever even think about complying with a contract that is not formally written or signed. Especially when the vendor has literally done everything every other company routinely does for the exact same situation.