User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 3:51:36 PM EDT
[#1]
Quoted: $1700-(2x$80)=$1540, this is my number at the time and I rounded down to $50. $1600-(2x80)=$1440 Again the blem was never addressed. We have no idea if it's a $200 scratch or a $10 handling mark. Without that info I don't see how we can really have a fair assessment of the deal. The fact that the OP never addresses this makes me think it's really really minor. ETA: For all we know the gun was a display model with a barely noticeable handling mark and was priced appropriately at $1450 considering it had only one mag and the employee just screwed the OP by describing it improperly. The blem is irrelevant. Op knew it was a blem gun. This is strictly about the magazines. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 4:07:58 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: $1700-(2x$80)=$1540, this is my number at the time and I rounded down to $50. $1600-(2x80)=$1440 Again the blem was never addressed. We have no idea if it's a $200 scratch or a $10 handling mark. Without that info I don't see how we can really have a fair assessment of the deal. The fact that the OP never addresses this makes me think it's really really minor. ETA: For all we know the gun was a display model with a barely noticeable handling mark and was priced appropriately at $1450 considering it had only one mag and the employee just screwed the OP by describing it improperly. It was sold as a blem, he knew it was a blem. What is a $200 scratch? How is a dollar value attributed to a scratch? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 4:33:08 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It was sold as a blem, he knew it was a blem. What is a $200 scratch? How is a dollar value attributed to a scratch? Quote HistoryQuoted: It was sold as a blem, he knew it was a blem. What is a $200 scratch? How is a dollar value attributed to a scratch? Last post of page 6. I still think RifleGear shares at least 50% if not more of the fault here, see my edit above, they obviously dropped the ball. I'm only arguing for the perceived value of what he got. At a minimum the OP owes them around $1300. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 4:38:20 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The blem is irrelevant. Op knew it was a blem gun. This is strictly about the magazines. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: $1700-(2x$80)=$1540, this is my number at the time and I rounded down to $50. $1600-(2x80)=$1440 Again the blem was never addressed. We have no idea if it's a $200 scratch or a $10 handling mark. Without that info I don't see how we can really have a fair assessment of the deal. The fact that the OP never addresses this makes me think it's really really minor. ETA: For all we know the gun was a display model with a barely noticeable handling mark and was priced appropriately at $1450 considering it had only one mag and the employee just screwed the OP by describing it improperly. The blem is irrelevant. Op knew it was a blem gun. This is strictly about the magazines. Which is why I put the general sale price of this gun at the time this occurred minus the cost of two mags. A $1700 a NIB gun minus two mags would be $1540, he paid $1450. If he's 100% in the right he still owes them almost $1300. ETA: The bottom line is he's mad about the perceived value of what he had, that's my only point. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 4:43:14 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Which is why I put the general sale price of this gun at the time this occurred minus the cost of two mags. A $1700 a NIB gun minus two mags would be $1540, he paid $1450. If he's 100% in the right he still owes them almost $1300. Buyer should pay $1450, (minus whatever appropriate for the ATF threat) Seller should supply 2 TSO magazines with the orange baseplates. Or, take the gun back. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 4:47:21 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: A better way to look at it (to me) is, Buyer should pay $1450, (minus whatever appropriate for the ATF threat) Seller should supply 2 TSO magazines with the orange baseplates. Or, take the gun back. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Which is why I put the general sale price of this gun at the time this occurred minus the cost of two mags. A $1700 a NIB gun minus two mags would be $1540, he paid $1450. If he's 100% in the right he still owes them almost $1300. Buyer should pay $1450, (minus whatever appropriate for the ATF threat) Seller should supply 2 TSO magazines with the orange baseplates. Or, take the gun back. He screwed the pooch by accepting the transfer, that's the gold standard of taking ownership. Not many places will accept a gun back after that point unless it has function issues. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 4:54:16 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: He screwed the pooch by accepting the transfer, that's the gold standard of taking ownership. Not many places will accept a gun back after that point unless it has function issues. Yeah, I get it. The Rifle-whatever screwed the pooch when they violated the terms of the credit card company, I reckon. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 4:54:36 PM EDT
[#8]
The customer is always right, amIright?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 5:00:54 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yeah, I get it. The Rifle-whatever screwed the pooch when they violated the terms of the credit card company, I reckon. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: He screwed the pooch by accepting the transfer, that's the gold standard of taking ownership. Not many places will accept a gun back after that point unless it has function issues. Yeah, I get it. The Rifle-whatever screwed the pooch when they violated the terms of the credit card company, I reckon. Yup, honestly I don't care who wins I'm going to avoid doing business with both of them in the future. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 5:02:08 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The customer is always right, amIright? Well, RG could have avoided most of this mess by either sending OP the two mags or proving OP was told that the mags weren't included to the CC company. But here we are drawing battle lines on the internet over something that is between OP, RG and the CC company. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 6:35:52 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Last post of page 6. Didn’t answer any of my questions but ok. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 9:31:34 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Didn’t answer any of my questions but ok. Lol, do you really need a literal answer for what a $200 scratch is? It's whatever the person who buys the gun thinks it is and that value is whatever a willing buyer will pay. That was a generalization which isn't even the main point of what I posted. Once you make the transfer it's yours. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 10:05:37 PM EDT
[#13]
Quoted: Lol, do you really need a literal answer for what a $200 scratch is? It's whatever the person who buys the gun thinks it is and that value is whatever a willing buyer will pay. That was a generalization which isn't even the main point of what I posted. Once you make the transfer it's yours. Apparently not only is it yours you don’t have to pay for it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 10:09:58 PM EDT
[#14]
I can't see anything stopping RifleGear from posting an update
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 10:37:16 PM EDT
[#15]
@Bandit117
They've got the magazines in stock at RifleGear.com! $85 each. https://www.riflegear.com/p-9784-cz-75-ts-orange-9mm-20rd-magazine.aspx Ad says nothing about a spring or follower being included, so caveat emptor. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2021 4:56:48 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I can't see anything stopping RifleGear from posting an update What do you want to know? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2021 5:01:07 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What do you want to know? Why don't you tell OP that you'll send the two magazines if he'll pay for the gun? You've got them in stock. You've already lost more than $170 worth of revenue from this thread. Why keep going? ETA: "None of your ef'ing business" is an acceptable answer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2021 5:35:42 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What do you want to know? Have you had further communication with OP? Did you arrive at an agreement with OP to resolve the dispute? If so, how were things resolved? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2021 6:00:36 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I've got a question for you. Why don't you tell OP that you'll send the two magazines if he'll pay for the gun? You've got them in stock. You've already lost more than $170 worth of revenue from this thread. Why keep going? ETA: "None of your ef'ing business" is an acceptable answer. After our phone conversation he indicated he "may" be willing to work something out. I was going to offer the gun at cost. He didn't call us back for a month, then called on a Saturday when none of the management are in the office, and left no message. I posted here and asked him to get back to us. He came back here, left an angry response, then disappeared again. What more can we do? The ball is in his court and it looks like he took the ball and went home. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2021 6:02:54 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: After our phone conversation he indicated he "may" be willing to work something out. I was going to offer the gun at cost. He didn't call us back for a month, then called on a Saturday when none of the management are in the office, and left no message. I posted here and asked him to get back to us. He came back here, left an angry response, then disappeared again. What more can we do? The ball is in his court and it looks like he took the ball and went home. So the OP has the pistol and his original payment was refunded? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2021 6:19:56 PM EDT
[#21]
Quoted: So the OP has the pistol and his original payment was refunded? Amex refunded him. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2021 6:51:43 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Amex refunded him. Yes, back in August. This has turned into one of those epic threads that just won't die. As entertaining as it is, I think it is time to move on. What have we learned: I have asked anyone that handles a pre-sales phone call about a blem to personally go to the warehouse, pull the item, and tell the interested party exactly what is and what is not in the package. I have even asked them to send it in an email so that it is in writing and then there can be no dispute about who said what. Issues dealing with accounting and chargebacks are ONLY to be handled by accounting personnel, with cool heads. Be careful when trying to defend yourself on social media  |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2021 7:07:10 PM EDT
[#23]
So basically OP believes because his blem gun was missing some mags and someone was mean to him on the phone he deserves a free gun?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2021 7:41:24 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: After our phone conversation he indicated he "may" be willing to work something out. I was going to offer the gun at cost. He didn't call us back for a month, then called on a Saturday when none of the management are in the office, and left no message. I posted here and asked him to get back to us. He came back here, left an angry response, then disappeared again. What more can we do? The ball is in his court and it looks like he took the ball and went home. That's very disappointing, even unforgivable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2021 10:52:21 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: After our phone conversation he indicated he "may" be willing to work something out. I was going to offer the gun at cost. He didn't call us back for a month, then called on a Saturday when none of the management are in the office, and left no message. I posted here and asked him to get back to us. He came back here, left an angry response, then disappeared again. What more can we do? The ball is in his court and it looks like he took the ball and went home. You have his phone number, reach out to him. If he answers, make your offer, calmly and patiently. If you get his voice mail, a simple "this is John Doe, with riflegear, I haven't heard back from you since our last conversation, please call me back on my direct line, 1-800-555-5555 at you convenience, thank you for your time, have a nice day." That being said, it sounds like you have made some good changes to your policies to avoid issues like this in the future. The ATF threat wasn't cool, but you have addressed that as well. I honestly hope that you and the OP can come to a satisfactory agreement, and that this will not hurt your business in the long term. If the OP refuses to pay anything for his pistol, I hope it jams constantly and he keeps dropping the small parts under heavy furniture for as long as he owns it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2021 7:43:08 AM EDT
[#26]
Glad to see that at least one party in this dispute has come forward with an update. It's really unfortunate that the other party has chosen not to be as transparent on this matter.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2021 9:19:05 AM EDT
[#27]
OP hasn't posted on Arfcom since December. Maybe he took his free pistol and went home?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2021 2:57:29 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I am also deeply concerned about any kind of liability from returning a firearm that was transferred to me. Should there be a crime with it, were someone to be injured by it, or if there was any kind of catastrophic mechanical failure, I would be worried about someone trying to come after me as the previous owner. At the beginning of the thread, I think we can all agree RG pulled a dick move on the seller. But once the OP posted the above, it's pretty clear what his hope/intent was once he filed the dispute...a credit on his AMEX and a free gun. The fact that RG has continued to come back , and has said "Yeah, we handled it wrong"...and the OP has ghosted...indicates who the true a'hole is in this episode. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2021 3:03:16 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: At the beginning of the thread, I think we can all agree RG pulled a dick move on the seller. But once the OP posted the above, it's pretty clear what his hope/intent was once he filed the dispute...a credit on his AMEX and a free gun. The fact that RG has continued to come back , and has said "Yeah, we handled it wrong"...and the OP has ghosted...indicates who the true a'hole is in this episode. Agreed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2021 3:23:49 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: At the beginning of the thread, I think we can all agree RG pulled a dick move on the seller. But once the OP posted the above, it's pretty clear what his hope/intent was once he filed the dispute...a credit on his AMEX and a free gun. The fact that RG has continued to come back , and has said "Yeah, we handled it wrong"...and the OP has ghosted...indicates who the true a'hole is in this episode. Yep. This thread has put one person on my "never, ever do business with on the EE" list, and it isn't RG. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2021 3:41:16 PM EDT
[#31]
Quoted: At the beginning of the thread, I think we can all agree RG pulled a dick move on the seller. But once the OP posted the above, it's pretty clear what his hope/intent was once he filed the dispute...a credit on his AMEX and a free gun. The fact that RG has continued to come back , and has said "Yeah, we handled it wrong"...and the OP has ghosted...indicates who the true a'hole is in this episode. Quoted: Yep. This thread has put one person on my "never, ever do business with on the EE" list, and it isn't RG. Agree and agree!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2021 10:23:28 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: At the beginning of the thread, I think we can all agree RG pulled a dick move on the seller. But once the OP posted the above, it's pretty clear what his hope/intent was once he filed the dispute...a credit on his AMEX and a free gun. The fact that RG has continued to come back , and has said "Yeah, we handled it wrong"...and the OP has ghosted...indicates who the true a'hole is in this episode. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I am also deeply concerned about any kind of liability from returning a firearm that was transferred to me. Should there be a crime with it, were someone to be injured by it, or if there was any kind of catastrophic mechanical failure, I would be worried about someone trying to come after me as the previous owner. At the beginning of the thread, I think we can all agree RG pulled a dick move on the seller. But once the OP posted the above, it's pretty clear what his hope/intent was once he filed the dispute...a credit on his AMEX and a free gun. The fact that RG has continued to come back , and has said "Yeah, we handled it wrong"...and the OP has ghosted...indicates who the true a'hole is in this episode. RG screwed up with the way it was handled at first but when a person or company admits their errors and corrects them that helps a ton. OP OTOH, not so much. Pretty sad. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/3/2021 7:03:36 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: RG screwed up with the way it was handled at first but when a person or company admits their errors and corrects them that helps a ton. OP OTOH, not so much. Pretty sad. Am I missing something? I don't see a single post where RG offered to send the 2 replacement magazines. Also from reading through this whole saga, it looks to me like RG was unwilling to do a single thing until they got hit with the chargeback and more specifically until after they lost the dispute. That looks to me like a company I would never want to do business with. The right thing to do was send the 2 magazines when they were reported missing. Blem's sold by CZ 100% leave the factory with everything in the case that a non blem has. Someone at RG pocketed those magazines and made it the OPs problem. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/3/2021 7:12:07 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Am I missing something? I don't see a single post where RG offered to send the 2 replacement magazines. Also from reading through this whole saga, it looks to me like RG was unwilling to do a single thing until they got hit with the chargeback and more specifically until after they lost the dispute. That looks to me like a company I would never want to do business with. The right thing to do was send the 2 magazines when they were reported missing. Blem's sold by CZ 100% leave the factory with everything in the case that a non blem has. Someone at RG pocketed those magazines and made it the OPs problem. Yeah, I made the suggestion about the magazines about 20 posts up (since they're even in stock), but they still didn't do it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/3/2021 7:17:07 PM EDT
[#35]
Quoted: Am I missing something? I don't see a single post where RG offered to send the 2 replacement magazines. Also from reading through this whole saga, it looks to me like RG was unwilling to do a single thing until they got hit with the chargeback and more specifically until after they lost the dispute. That looks to me like a company I would never want to do business with. The right thing to do was send the 2 magazines when they were reported missing. Blem's sold by CZ 100% leave the factory with everything in the case that a non blem has. Someone at RG pocketed those magazines and made it the OPs problem. You joined the forum to make that comment in this thread? Yeah that’s not weird at all. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/3/2021 7:58:16 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You joined the forum to make that comment in this thread? Yeah that’s not weird at all. Totally not suspicious at all... |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/3/2021 9:27:36 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Totally not suspicious at all... Still a valid point. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/3/2021 10:12:44 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Totally not suspicious at all... Because it's my first post it's suspicious? That has nothing to do with the topic here. Stay on topic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/3/2021 10:15:35 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You joined the forum to make that comment in this thread? Yeah that’s not weird at all. Negative. Was the only active thread that I had any interest in at the moment. I will also note, my post was not a troll post, I can't say the same for yours. How about addressing my summation of the issue here. It seems most reasonable folks have sided with the OP. Then there were a few folks that seemed to have said RG was being reasonable. Unless some posts were deleted, please refer me to what exactly RG suggested that was reasonable? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/3/2021 11:22:25 PM EDT
[#40]
Quoted: Because it's my first post it's suspicious? That has nothing to do with the topic here. Stay on topic. Quoted: Negative. Was the only active thread that I had any interest in at the moment. I will also note, my post was not a troll post, I can't say the same for yours. How about addressing my summation of the issue here. It seems most reasonable folks have sided with the OP. Then there were a few folks that seemed to have said RG was being reasonable. Unless some posts were deleted, please refer me to what exactly RG suggested that was reasonable? At this point I am not convinced that the OP's story is legitimate so that idea that Riflegear should just send out two mags automatically is not normal in my opinion. If you don't understand why your post seems shady you haven't spent much time on the internet. If you read through the thread you will see that I was on the OP's side originally but his actions in this thread do no seem honorable to me so now I don't just crucify Rifle Gear. I also stated that regardless of what went down if the OP got a free pistol through his credit card dispute process it's BS. Right and wrong often fall outside of written law and user agreements. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/4/2021 4:38:47 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Negative. Was the only active thread that I had any interest in at the moment. I will also note, my post was not a troll post, I can't say the same for yours. How about addressing my summation of the issue here. It seems most reasonable folks have sided with the OP. Then there were a few folks that seemed to have said RG was being reasonable. Unless some posts were deleted, please refer me to what exactly RG suggested that was reasonable? There’s a big difference between missing $100 with of mags and being out $1000 on a gun. This thing started with OP having a legitimate complaint, but it turned into OP basically being a thief. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/4/2021 11:54:42 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There’s a big difference between missing $100 with of mags and being out $1000 on a gun. This thing started with OP having a legitimate complaint, but it turned into OP basically being a thief. Do we know for a fact that the OP didn't pay at all for the gun? We do know the CC company put a hold on the full charge and ruled in his favor for the full charge (I had to dispute a charge recently and was able to have them dispute a specific $ amount). Mine wasn't AMEX though, so maybe they don't offer that option. There were some posts about some backroom discussions going on after the dispute was closed and I don't think we ever saw or were privy to the outcome. I agree he should pay the original intended amount, less the cost to replace the 2 missing magazines. Not paying anything would be stealing since the reason for the dispute was the missing mags and not an issue with the rest of the package which he did receive. The ATF threats don't really factor into the costs, I'm not sure how I would personally have dealt with that aspect as that is a low life, no class move on the part of the seller. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/4/2021 12:13:18 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: At this point I am not convinced that the OP's story is legitimate so that idea that Riflegear should just send out two mags automatically is not normal in my opinion. If you don't understand why your post seems shady you haven't spent much time on the internet. If you read through the thread you will see that I was on the OP's side originally but his actions in this thread do no seem honorable to me so now I don't just crucify Rifle Gear. I also stated that regardless of what went down if the OP got a free pistol through his credit card dispute process it's BS. Right and wrong often fall outside of written law and user agreements. Everyone will have a first post on a given forum at some point or another. My post was merely asking for what reason there would be to switch around and crucify the OP. I didn't see any conclusive posts one way or the other regarding what happened after the dispute was closed. From everything I've seen in the thread, RG had plenty of opportunities to make things right, their listing should be accurate in the first place. If something is missing somewhat expensive parts, it should be listed. There should be no room for misinterpretations. These blems absolutely do leave the factory 100% in tact. I've called CZ in the past about specific items and you are more than welcome to call them to verify that fact. Thus if someone is buying a "blem" unless specifically noted, there is no reason to assume parts are missing if it's not mentioned. Are you expected to print out a part chart, call the seller and verify every single part? That would be absurd. If something that should be there is missing, it should be noted. It was sold as a blem not open box. It is understood to be a factory package just no warranty on cosmetics. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/4/2021 12:19:51 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Everyone will have a first post on a given forum at some point or another. My post was merely asking for what reason there would be to switch around and crucify the OP. I didn't see any conclusive posts one way or the other regarding what happened after the dispute was closed. From everything I've seen in the thread, RG had plenty of opportunities to make things right, their listing should be accurate in the first place. If something is missing somewhat expensive parts, it should be listed. There should be no room for misinterpretations. These blems absolutely do leave the factory 100% in tact. I've called CZ in the past about specific items and you are more than welcome to call them to verify that fact. Thus if someone is buying a "blem" unless specifically noted, there is no reason to assume parts are missing if it's not mentioned. Are you expected to print out a part chart, call the seller and verify every single part? That would be absurd. If something that should be there is missing, it should be noted. It was sold as a blem not open box. It is understood to be a factory package just no warranty on cosmetics. From reading the thread it would appear he filed a chargeback, which was granted, and now he's got a free pistol. That's a thief unless OP wants to correct the record. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/4/2021 2:47:53 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If OP hasn't paid for the pistol, he's a thief. From reading the thread it would appear he filed a chargeback, which was granted, and now he's got a free pistol. That's a thief unless OP wants to correct the record. This was the last post (by OP) - down at the bottom of this post in italics. Nothing after that by either the OP or Seller. We don't know if no after the fact payments have been made. Yes. I have been in contact with American Express. American express informed me that RG didnt bother to participate in the investigation. [SNIP] American Express has recommended, in fact they practically insisted, that because the matter is closed on their end, I should not pay RG anything at all after the fact, since they knew that not responding by Oct 22 (60 days) would result in a default judgement, both in the merchant agreement and in the specific communications Amex sent. They said that although I am free to do as I please, for RG to try collect after Amex decided the dispute in my favor after RG didn't respond to AMEX would jeopardize the integrity of the dispute process. It seems like Amex want's to put some teeth in its dispute process, to give merchant's incentive to participate in this process. Amex was also pretty unhappy to hear that a merchant was even trying to collect after they lost the dispute by not participating in it. I did speak to shark with RG [SNIP] They had someone call me not long before thanksgiving, I called back a few days ago and have heard nothing since. This whole thing is just grating. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/4/2021 2:51:50 PM EDT
[#46]
It looks like RG never appropriately responded to the dispute. That is grounds for automatic closure of a dispute. Likewise, the payment process is a contract between AMEX, buyer and seller. AMEX dictates the terms of the process and quite frankly, it's not the buyers responsibility to change the nature of the agreement. Keep in mind, had the seller provided any documentation regarding the sale and the contents included, there is no way AMEX would have closed this out entirely in favor of the buyer. Again, I've done some disputes and after review they will credit you (if one is due) for only the appropriate amount based on the findings.
Before we call the OP a thief, we would need to know why AMEX closed the dispute and found it 100% in his favor. Perhaps there more to this that we just don't know. They don't typically just close a dispute for $1000+ in favor of one party on a whim. It is possible that this merchant has been involved in multiple disputes with other customers and they already had multiple strikes against them. Just conjecture, but like I said credit card companies don't just reverse charges for high dollar amounts without cause. Based on what I've seen here, I would only have awarded the OP the cost of 2 magazines. Perhaps AMEX is the thief here? I guess I'm just curious as to what "really" happened. There has got to be more to this story that we don't know. RG is clearly at fault for part of this situation. That is a given. As to the motives of the OP? This would be an odd way to put a scheme together to "steal" a gun. There really was no benefit to coming online and posting anything if all he wanted to do was dispute the full charge and see if he could get away with it. It also looks as though he never even named the seller. The seller apparently came on and outed themselves. I think this was just a shitshow for the seller that kept snowballing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/4/2021 2:58:17 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This was the last post (by OP) - down at the bottom of this post in italics. Nothing after that by either the OP or Seller. We don't know if no after the fact payments have been made. Yes. I have been in contact with American Express. American express informed me that RG didnt bother to participate in the investigation. [SNIP] American Express has recommended, in fact they practically insisted, that because the matter is closed on their end, I should not pay RG anything at all after the fact, since they knew that not responding by Oct 22 (60 days) would result in a default judgement, both in the merchant agreement and in the specific communications Amex sent. They said that although I am free to do as I please, for RG to try collect after Amex decided the dispute in my favor after RG didn't respond to AMEX would jeopardize the integrity of the dispute process. It seems like Amex want's to put some teeth in its dispute process, to give merchant's incentive to participate in this process. Amex was also pretty unhappy to hear that a merchant was even trying to collect after they lost the dispute by not participating in it. I did speak to shark with RG [SNIP] They had someone call me not long before thanksgiving, I called back a few days ago and have heard nothing since. This whole thing is just grating. Time for some logic... If OP got a chargeback in the amount of the mags, then why wouldnt both sides say "fair enough" and walk away? Why would OP try calling RG for ANY reason if he got his initial wish (chargeback for the cost of mags)??? TA-DA.... OP got the entire amount back. That's why he mentioned RG trying to collect anything. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/4/2021 3:17:20 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This was the last post (by OP) - down at the bottom of this post in italics. Nothing after that by either the OP or Seller. We don't know if no after the fact payments have been made. Yes. I have been in contact with American Express. American express informed me that RG didnt bother to participate in the investigation. [SNIP] American Express has recommended, in fact they practically insisted, that because the matter is closed on their end, I should not pay RG anything at all after the fact, since they knew that not responding by Oct 22 (60 days) would result in a default judgement, both in the merchant agreement and in the specific communications Amex sent. They said that although I am free to do as I please, for RG to try collect after Amex decided the dispute in my favor after RG didn't respond to AMEX would jeopardize the integrity of the dispute process. It seems like Amex want's to put some teeth in its dispute process, to give merchant's incentive to participate in this process. Amex was also pretty unhappy to hear that a merchant was even trying to collect after they lost the dispute by not participating in it. I did speak to shark with RG [SNIP] They had someone call me not long before thanksgiving, I called back a few days ago and have heard nothing since. This whole thing is just grating. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: If OP hasn't paid for the pistol, he's a thief. From reading the thread it would appear he filed a chargeback, which was granted, and now he's got a free pistol. That's a thief unless OP wants to correct the record. This was the last post (by OP) - down at the bottom of this post in italics. Nothing after that by either the OP or Seller. We don't know if no after the fact payments have been made. Yes. I have been in contact with American Express. American express informed me that RG didnt bother to participate in the investigation. [SNIP] American Express has recommended, in fact they practically insisted, that because the matter is closed on their end, I should not pay RG anything at all after the fact, since they knew that not responding by Oct 22 (60 days) would result in a default judgement, both in the merchant agreement and in the specific communications Amex sent. They said that although I am free to do as I please, for RG to try collect after Amex decided the dispute in my favor after RG didn't respond to AMEX would jeopardize the integrity of the dispute process. It seems like Amex want's to put some teeth in its dispute process, to give merchant's incentive to participate in this process. Amex was also pretty unhappy to hear that a merchant was even trying to collect after they lost the dispute by not participating in it. I did speak to shark with RG [SNIP] They had someone call me not long before thanksgiving, I called back a few days ago and have heard nothing since. This whole thing is just grating. You are wrong. Read the entire thread. shark92651 IS the seller. In this thread the seller has clearly stated there was a full chargeback, an offer to op to pay dealer price and zero comma from OP. So OO has the pistol snd all his money. Quoted: After our phone conversation he indicated he "may" be willing to work something out. I was going to offer the gun at cost. He didn't call us back for a month, then called on a Saturday when none of the management are in the office, and left no message. I posted here and asked him to get back to us. He came back here, left an angry response, then disappeared again. What more can we do? The ball is in his court and it looks like he took the ball and went home. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/4/2021 3:22:44 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It looks like RG never appropriately responded to the dispute. That is grounds for automatic closure of a dispute. Likewise, the payment process is a contract between AMEX, buyer and seller. AMEX dictates the terms of the process and quite frankly, it's not the buyers responsibility to change the nature of the agreement. Keep in mind, had the seller provided any documentation regarding the sale and the contents included, there is no way AMEX would have closed this out entirely in favor of the buyer. Again, I've done some disputes and after review they will credit you (if one is due) for only the appropriate amount based on the findings. Before we call the OP a thief, we would need to know why AMEX closed the dispute and found it 100% in his favor. Perhaps there more to this that we just don't know. They don't typically just close a dispute for $1000+ in favor of one party on a whim. It is possible that this merchant has been involved in multiple disputes with other customers and they already had multiple strikes against them. Just conjecture, but like I said credit card companies don't just reverse charges for high dollar amounts without cause. Based on what I've seen here, I would only have awarded the OP the cost of 2 magazines. Perhaps AMEX is the thief here? I guess I'm just curious as to what "really" happened. There has got to be more to this story that we don't know. RG is clearly at fault for part of this situation. That is a given. As to the motives of the OP? This would be an odd way to put a scheme together to "steal" a gun. There really was no benefit to coming online and posting anything if all he wanted to do was dispute the full charge and see if he could get away with it. It also looks as though he never even named the seller. The seller apparently came on and outed themselves. I think this was just a shitshow for the seller that kept snowballing. Seriously? The CC is the thief? That’s ridiculous. There’s a gun sitting in someone’s safe the seller received $0 for. The OP has the ability to bake this right. He’s choosing not too, because he’s a thief. You also seem extremely vested in carrying OPs banner for someone who just joined the forum to comment in this particular thread. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/4/2021 3:23:17 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You are wrong. Read the entire thread. shark92651 IS the seller. In this thread the seller has clearly stated there was a full chargeback, an offer to op to pay dealer price and zero comma from OP. So OO has the pistol snd all his money. This was all AFTER the dispute was found in his favor. That doesn't invalidate anything I posted. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
