Walmart destroys private property

[SassyIrishLass]

Left-wing people are going nutz over the confederate flag, and so Walmart following the left-wing perspectives, melts down a confederate flag on a ring.... and immediately the left attacks walmart. If they had been selling confederate flags all over the place, you'd be attacking them for that. Now they are refusing to sell stuff with the confederate flag, and you are screaming about that.

This is why people in business should always, and completely, ignore all these leftists. They are completely irrational, and childish. No matter what you do, they scream.

I think SassyIrishChick will be surprised to find out that she's a "leftist" now.

Hey Doc, don't be all butt hurt because I made you look like a dumb ass. I do it to simpletons all the time

You couldn't make Donald Trump look like a dumb ass, clown. Next to you, everyone's a fucking Einstein.

Still waiting for that contract...

There was a contract, I've already explained retail contracts to you. Walmart failed to deliver the merchandise, my understanding is the ring was supposed to have the high school mascot on it, while Walmart can (but shouldn't) refuse to put the mascot on the ring the moment they put any other high school mascot on any other ring they are in the wrong. The confederate flag is not banned in this nation and Walmart cannot pick and choose what mascots they will and will not put on a ring.

1. Are you under the impression that relaying an anecdote from your lawyer husband about a car dealership somehow "proves" that a contract exists for this ring order?

2. Of course Walmart can "pick and choose" what mascots they will or will not put on a ring. What prevents them from doing so?

Any argument with "they are a private business and can do what they want" will immediately be rebutted with the bakers were also a private business. This would be part of that slippery slope you all were warned about.

There are laws protecting LGBT customers from discrimination, and the bakers were sued under those laws. There is no law that protects the Confederate Flag from discrimination.

Now, can the student sue? He could but would have a difficult time proving emotional damages and would be best to take the money back and find another retailer that will supply the desired ring. Pretty much what the lesbians should have done in the case of their pretend marriage wedding cake

In other words, there's no grounds for a lawsuit, and they'd lose it if they tried.

Thanks for agreeing with me.

I never agreed with you, there are grounds but the effort and expense of a suit outweighs the chance of damages being awarded. Keep in mind before this exchange began you didn't know the definition of a retail contract, it's doubtful I'm going to take you serious on anything else regarding this matter.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I think SassyIrishChick will be surprised to find out that she's a "leftist" now.

Hey Doc, don't be all butt hurt because I made you look like a dumb ass. I do it to simpletons all the time

You couldn't make Donald Trump look like a dumb ass, clown. Next to you, everyone's a fucking Einstein.

Still waiting for that contract...

There was a contract, I've already explained retail contracts to you. Walmart failed to deliver the merchandise, my understanding is the ring was supposed to have the high school mascot on it, while Walmart can (but shouldn't) refuse to put the mascot on the ring the moment they put any other high school mascot on any other ring they are in the wrong. The confederate flag is not banned in this nation and Walmart cannot pick and choose what mascots they will and will not put on a ring.

1. Are you under the impression that relaying an anecdote from your lawyer husband about a car dealership somehow "proves" that a contract exists for this ring order?

2. Of course Walmart can "pick and choose" what mascots they will or will not put on a ring. What prevents them from doing so?

Any argument with "they are a private business and can do what they want" will immediately be rebutted with the bakers were also a private business. This would be part of that slippery slope you all were warned about.

There are laws protecting LGBT customers from discrimination, and the bakers were sued under those laws. There is no law that protects the Confederate Flag from discrimination.

Now, can the student sue? He could but would have a difficult time proving emotional damages and would be best to take the money back and find another retailer that will supply the desired ring. Pretty much what the lesbians should have done in the case of their pretend marriage wedding cake

In other words, there's no grounds for a lawsuit, and they'd lose it if they tried.

Thanks for agreeing with me.

I never agreed with you, there are grounds but the effort and expense of a suit outweighs the chance of damages being awarded. Keep in mind before this exchange began you didn't know the definition of a retail contract, it's doubtful I'm going to take you serious on anything else regarding this matter.

As far as I remember, this conversation started with you utterly failing at reading comprehension, so I don't exactly think you're in much of a position to talk about being taken seriously.

If you don't want to respond to my posts, then don't.

No one is forcing you to, and the more you whine about not taking me seriously, the more the space I rent in your head becomes clear.

Anyway, let's recap your arguments:

Because your husband's law firm represented someone suing a car dealer once, therefore a signed, legally binding contract for this ring order must exist, and must have been violated when the sale was cancelled, therefore providing grounds for a lawsuit.

Did I miss anything?

 

[Dragonlady]

There was a contract, I've already explained retail contracts to you. Walmart failed to deliver the merchandise, my understanding is the ring was supposed to have the high school mascot on it, while Walmart can (but shouldn't) refuse to put the mascot on the ring the moment they put any other high school mascot on any other ring they are in the wrong. The confederate flag is not banned in this nation and Walmart cannot pick and choose what mascots they will and will not put on a ring.

Any argument with "they are a private business and can do what they want" will immediately be rebutted with the bakers were also a private business. This would be part of that slippery slope you all were warned about.

Now, can the student sue? He could but would have a difficult time proving emotional damages and would be best to take the money back and find another retailer that will supply the desired ring. Pretty much what the lesbians should have done in the case of their pretend marriage wedding cake

Your understanding of the law is garbage. In failing to fulfill her "contract", Walmart need only return the money she paid for the ring, nothing more. There is no pain or suffering involved.

The confederate flag is not protected in any way from discrimination. Walmart can most definitely discriminate in what school mascots it will put on rings.

There is no basis for a law suit. And you're an idiot for thinking there is.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

It's amazing to me how little people seem to understand how our legal system works.

What grounds do you guys think she could sue on?

As for what legal grounds she could sue under, it is something called "specific performance." It will allege that the proprietor failed to uphold it's end of the contract. In this case, monetary damages will not give her the ring she wanted. Her only remedy is to sue for compliance.

What is Specific Performance as a Legal Remedy - FindLaw

What "contract"? Have you seen this contract?

I've been hearing a lot about it from posters in this thread, but no one's been able to provide it.

 

[Dragonlady]

This is not a case to which "specific performance" would apply. The goods in question are not "unique" and can easily be obtained elsewhere.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Hey Doc, don't be all butt hurt because I made you look like a dumb ass. I do it to simpletons all the time

You couldn't make Donald Trump look like a dumb ass, clown. Next to you, everyone's a fucking Einstein.

Still waiting for that contract...

There was a contract, I've already explained retail contracts to you. Walmart failed to deliver the merchandise, my understanding is the ring was supposed to have the high school mascot on it, while Walmart can (but shouldn't) refuse to put the mascot on the ring the moment they put any other high school mascot on any other ring they are in the wrong. The confederate flag is not banned in this nation and Walmart cannot pick and choose what mascots they will and will not put on a ring.

1. Are you under the impression that relaying an anecdote from your lawyer husband about a car dealership somehow "proves" that a contract exists for this ring order?

2. Of course Walmart can "pick and choose" what mascots they will or will not put on a ring. What prevents them from doing so?

Any argument with "they are a private business and can do what they want" will immediately be rebutted with the bakers were also a private business. This would be part of that slippery slope you all were warned about.

There are laws protecting LGBT customers from discrimination, and the bakers were sued under those laws. There is no law that protects the Confederate Flag from discrimination.

Now, can the student sue? He could but would have a difficult time proving emotional damages and would be best to take the money back and find another retailer that will supply the desired ring. Pretty much what the lesbians should have done in the case of their pretend marriage wedding cake

In other words, there's no grounds for a lawsuit, and they'd lose it if they tried.

Thanks for agreeing with me.

I never agreed with you, there are grounds but the effort and expense of a suit outweighs the chance of damages being awarded. Keep in mind before this exchange began you didn't know the definition of a retail contract, it's doubtful I'm going to take you serious on anything else regarding this matter.

As far as I remember, this conversation started with you utterly failing at reading comprehension, so I don't exactly think you're in much of a position to talk about being taken seriously.

If you don't want to respond to my posts, then don't.

No one is forcing you to, and the more you whine about not taking me seriously, the more the space I rent in your head becomes clear.

Anyway, let's recap your arguments:

Because your husband's law firm represented someone suing a car dealer once, therefore a signed, legally binding contract for this ring order must exist, and must have been violated when the sale was cancelled, therefore providing grounds for a lawsuit.

Did I miss anything?

Yeah, the part where you didn't know what a retail contract is and the fact it can be between a retailer and a customer. You're upset, relax, you're just not as clever as you make yourself out to be.

 

[TemplarKormac]

One, It was her mistake to order it through Wal-Mart, a third party. Two, I ordered my original high school ring in the winter of 2005, from a company known as Balfour. When I lost my first ring, I ordered the replacement from them again. Never ever buy from a third party for something as important as a class ring. Ever.

I'm just guessing, but Walmart is probably the cheaper option. They usually are.

Not always.

I paid 280 for both of my rings. It is my experience that in some cases it is cheaper to buy direct from the manufacturer. The price you pay is directly correlated to the materials you want on the ring... the gem or the metal. Naturally Yellow or White gold will run you. So I ordered Celestrium. It is more durable than gold or silver, and it doesn't tarnish as easily. The gem is synthesized, so that makes it cheaper than the ones taken straight from a quarry.

For me, ordering direct from the manufacturer gave me more options, and I could tell the middle man to take a hike.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You couldn't make Donald Trump look like a dumb ass, clown. Next to you, everyone's a fucking Einstein.

Still waiting for that contract...

There was a contract, I've already explained retail contracts to you. Walmart failed to deliver the merchandise, my understanding is the ring was supposed to have the high school mascot on it, while Walmart can (but shouldn't) refuse to put the mascot on the ring the moment they put any other high school mascot on any other ring they are in the wrong. The confederate flag is not banned in this nation and Walmart cannot pick and choose what mascots they will and will not put on a ring.

1. Are you under the impression that relaying an anecdote from your lawyer husband about a car dealership somehow "proves" that a contract exists for this ring order?

2. Of course Walmart can "pick and choose" what mascots they will or will not put on a ring. What prevents them from doing so?

Any argument with "they are a private business and can do what they want" will immediately be rebutted with the bakers were also a private business. This would be part of that slippery slope you all were warned about.

There are laws protecting LGBT customers from discrimination, and the bakers were sued under those laws. There is no law that protects the Confederate Flag from discrimination.

Now, can the student sue? He could but would have a difficult time proving emotional damages and would be best to take the money back and find another retailer that will supply the desired ring. Pretty much what the lesbians should have done in the case of their pretend marriage wedding cake

In other words, there's no grounds for a lawsuit, and they'd lose it if they tried.

Thanks for agreeing with me.

I never agreed with you, there are grounds but the effort and expense of a suit outweighs the chance of damages being awarded. Keep in mind before this exchange began you didn't know the definition of a retail contract, it's doubtful I'm going to take you serious on anything else regarding this matter.

As far as I remember, this conversation started with you utterly failing at reading comprehension, so I don't exactly think you're in much of a position to talk about being taken seriously.

If you don't want to respond to my posts, then don't.

No one is forcing you to, and the more you whine about not taking me seriously, the more the space I rent in your head becomes clear.

Anyway, let's recap your arguments:

Because your husband's law firm represented someone suing a car dealer once, therefore a signed, legally binding contract for this ring order must exist, and must have been violated when the sale was cancelled, therefore providing grounds for a lawsuit.

Did I miss anything?

Yeah, the part where you didn't know what a retail contract is and the fact it can be between a retailer and a customer. You're upset, relax, you're just not as clever as you make yourself out to be.

Do you think that because I used the term "retail contract" in the context of wholesale/retail agreements, your overall argument is somehow made less ridiculous?

Do you understand what a "non sequitur" is?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

There was a contract, I've already explained retail contracts to you. Walmart failed to deliver the merchandise, my understanding is the ring was supposed to have the high school mascot on it, while Walmart can (but shouldn't) refuse to put the mascot on the ring the moment they put any other high school mascot on any other ring they are in the wrong. The confederate flag is not banned in this nation and Walmart cannot pick and choose what mascots they will and will not put on a ring.

1. Are you under the impression that relaying an anecdote from your lawyer husband about a car dealership somehow "proves" that a contract exists for this ring order?

2. Of course Walmart can "pick and choose" what mascots they will or will not put on a ring. What prevents them from doing so?

Any argument with "they are a private business and can do what they want" will immediately be rebutted with the bakers were also a private business. This would be part of that slippery slope you all were warned about.

There are laws protecting LGBT customers from discrimination, and the bakers were sued under those laws. There is no law that protects the Confederate Flag from discrimination.

Now, can the student sue? He could but would have a difficult time proving emotional damages and would be best to take the money back and find another retailer that will supply the desired ring. Pretty much what the lesbians should have done in the case of their pretend marriage wedding cake

In other words, there's no grounds for a lawsuit, and they'd lose it if they tried.

Thanks for agreeing with me.

I never agreed with you, there are grounds but the effort and expense of a suit outweighs the chance of damages being awarded. Keep in mind before this exchange began you didn't know the definition of a retail contract, it's doubtful I'm going to take you serious on anything else regarding this matter.

As far as I remember, this conversation started with you utterly failing at reading comprehension, so I don't exactly think you're in much of a position to talk about being taken seriously.

If you don't want to respond to my posts, then don't.

No one is forcing you to, and the more you whine about not taking me seriously, the more the space I rent in your head becomes clear.

Anyway, let's recap your arguments:

Because your husband's law firm represented someone suing a car dealer once, therefore a signed, legally binding contract for this ring order must exist, and must have been violated when the sale was cancelled, therefore providing grounds for a lawsuit.

Did I miss anything?

Yeah, the part where you didn't know what a retail contract is and the fact it can be between a retailer and a customer. You're upset, relax, you're just not as clever as you make yourself out to be.

Do you think that because I used the term "retail contract" in the context of wholesale/retail agreements, your overall argument is somehow made less ridiculous?

Do you understand what a "non sequitur" is?

I understand I schooled you on the fact a retail contract can be between a customer and retailer. Did you not say it couldn't?

You are deflecting and your spin is making me dizzy. Admit you were schooled...move on....you're looking sad.

PS That "non sequitur" is so overused by you left loons. Much like "racist" and "bigot"

Have a pleasant evening.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

1. Are you under the impression that relaying an anecdote from your lawyer husband about a car dealership somehow "proves" that a contract exists for this ring order?

2. Of course Walmart can "pick and choose" what mascots they will or will not put on a ring. What prevents them from doing so?

There are laws protecting LGBT customers from discrimination, and the bakers were sued under those laws. There is no law that protects the Confederate Flag from discrimination.

In other words, there's no grounds for a lawsuit, and they'd lose it if they tried.

Thanks for agreeing with me.

I never agreed with you, there are grounds but the effort and expense of a suit outweighs the chance of damages being awarded. Keep in mind before this exchange began you didn't know the definition of a retail contract, it's doubtful I'm going to take you serious on anything else regarding this matter.

As far as I remember, this conversation started with you utterly failing at reading comprehension, so I don't exactly think you're in much of a position to talk about being taken seriously.

If you don't want to respond to my posts, then don't.

No one is forcing you to, and the more you whine about not taking me seriously, the more the space I rent in your head becomes clear.

Anyway, let's recap your arguments:

Because your husband's law firm represented someone suing a car dealer once, therefore a signed, legally binding contract for this ring order must exist, and must have been violated when the sale was cancelled, therefore providing grounds for a lawsuit.

Did I miss anything?

Yeah, the part where you didn't know what a retail contract is and the fact it can be between a retailer and a customer. You're upset, relax, you're just not as clever as you make yourself out to be.

Do you think that because I used the term "retail contract" in the context of wholesale/retail agreements, your overall argument is somehow made less ridiculous?

Do you understand what a "non sequitur" is?

I understand I schooled you on the fact a retail contract can be between a customer and retailer. Did you not say it couldn't?

You are deflecting and your spin is making me dizzy. Admit you were schooled...move on....you're looking sad.

PS That "non sequitur" is so overused by you left loons. Much like "racist" and "bigot"

Have a pleasant evening.

This thread isn't about what a "retail contract" is. That's the "deflection".

 

[TemplarKormac]

I'm going to make a simple observation here...

When you offer to sell an item to the public, you are entering yourself into a retail contract. You agree to sell, the consumer agrees to buy, with the full expectation of receiving the product you agreed to sell them.

If I understand my contract law correctly, this woman could sue under a clause known as "specific performance." If all she wants is the ring, in lieu of monetary damages, this is what she would need to do. Money will not be an adequate remedy for the item desired. This method, if successful on behalf of the plaintiff, would force Wal-Mart to fulfill the contract as agreed to.

She would have a solid case, in my honest opinion.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I'm simply going to make a simple observation here...

When you offer to sell an item to the public, you are entering yourself into a retail contract. You agree to sell, the consumer agrees to buy, with the full expectation of receiving the product you agreed to sell them. The ring is "real property."

If I understand my law correctly, this woman could sue under a clause known as "specific performance." If all she wants is the ring, in lieu of monetary damages, this is what she would need to do. Money will not be an adequate remedy for the item desired.

She would have a solid case, in my honest opinion.

That's just not true.

A binding contract doesn't magically come into being simply because something is offered for sale.

The restaurant down the street from me ran out of my favorite entree last time I went there. It was on the menu, but when I ordered it, they said no.

Do you think that means I can sue them?

Even if such a contract existed, what makes you so sure it doesn't have a clause allowing Walmart the ability to cancel the order at any time?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Even if such a contract existed, what makes you so sure it doesn't have a clause allowing Walmart the ability to cancel the order at any time?

Because she had already put up the money in exchange for fulfillment of the sale. The purchase had already been made pending the delivery of the item. Walmart could have simply informed her before the money was exchanged that "we cannot sell rings with the confederate flag on them." Now, that she had given them the money, they were obligated to fulfill the sale.

The restaurant down the street from me ran out of my favorite entree last time I went there. It was on the menu, but when I ordered it, they said no.

Do you think that means I can sue them?

This argument is non applicable. In this case, Walmart had the item when she ordered it. It was available and in stock at the time she selected that ring for purchase. You can't deny someone a product that they, in good faith, already purchased from you. The purchase had already taken place long before Walmart decided to make a politically correct decision.

A binding contract doesn't magically come into being simply because something is offered for sale.

This situation is unique.

Basically, a contract, boiled down is "I agree, you agree" in writing. I agree to sell, you agree to buy. I sell with the expectation of receiving money in compensation for the loss of the item, while you buy the item with the expectation of getting it, as it was described by me, the seller, without any further impediment. It is my obligation to fulfill the sale, even if my policies have changed before or after the purchase. It is also my obligation to fulfill the sale even if I agreed to it by mistake.

The only way the contract doesn't work is if the consumer knows in advance what my policies are regarding the sale of that specific item. In this woman's case, she had no idea. None.

 

[TemplarKormac]

On a side note, the spokesman for Walmart claims the purchase was made after the retailer's decision to stop selling the ring. Funny, that's a lie. How would they have A) carved the ring and B) delivered the ring if their decision had been made prior to the purchase? The retailer fulfilled the sale anyway without regard to the policy and outrightly denied the consumer the item she paid for.

What a crock this is.

 

[2aguy]

I understood it perfectly and I don't need a simpleton such as yourself to explain it. By the way Walmart breached a contract.

No, you clearly did not.

Do you have a link to this "contract"?

Why would I have a link to a contract?

Well, since you seem to be so sure of the existence of this "contract", and what it says, I assumed you must have some additional information to back that up.

I guess not.

I guess you don't know what a retail contract is. Move along, Sparky, you're in over your head

Question. Are you an economics professor?

Sassy may not be an economics professor by you are still a vile racist.....9.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

On a side note, the spokesman for Walmart claims the purchase was made after the retailer's decision to stop selling the ring. Funny, that's a lie. How would they have A) carved the ring and B) delivered the ring if their decision had been made prior to the purchase? The retailer fulfilled the sale anyway without regard to the policy and outrightly denied the consumer the item she paid for.

What a crock this is.

Read the story. Walmart does not make the rings themselves, they contract them out to a jeweler.

 

[LoneLaugher]

On a side note, the spokesman for Walmart claims the purchase was made after the retailer's decision to stop selling the ring. Funny, that's a lie. How would they have A) carved the ring and B) delivered the ring if their decision had been made prior to the purchase? The retailer fulfilled the sale anyway without regard to the policy and outrightly denied the consumer the item she paid for.

What a crock this is.

Read the story. Walmart does not make the rings themselves, they contract them out to a jeweler.

Probably Balfour.

And....someone had better tell kids how important these rings are. None of mine even bothered to get one.

 

[LoneLaugher]

No, you clearly did not.

Do you have a link to this "contract"?

Why would I have a link to a contract?

Well, since you seem to be so sure of the existence of this "contract", and what it says, I assumed you must have some additional information to back that up.

I guess not.

I guess you don't know what a retail contract is. Move along, Sparky, you're in over your head

Question. Are you an economics professor?

Sassy may not be an economics professor by you are still a vile racist.....9.

Are you sure she isn't an economics professor? I think she is also a CIA agent or something like that. Ask her.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Read the story. Walmart does not make the rings themselves, they contract them out to a jeweler.

It doesn't matter who makes the rings, they are obligated to sell it. Also notice the specific usage of the word "retailer" and not "Walmart."

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Read the story. Walmart does not make the rings themselves, they contract them out to a jeweler.

It doesn't matter who makes the rings, they are obligated to sell it. Also notice the specific usage of the word "retailer" and not "Walmart."

They are not obligated to sell anything.

You are making up laws and regulations that simply don't exist.