Walmart destroys private property

[Maryland Patriot]

May I ask, what is her case? She is not being discriminated against because she is a woman or presumably white. There a many jewelry stores.

Breach of contract. Wallmart initially took her order and money for the ring with full knowledge of the confederate flag that was goining on it. Then it was after the ring was made and delivered to Walmart that the lady was called to pick up her ring. When she got there she was then told that she could not have the ring because of the confederate flag on it. If Walmart had refused the order upfront then this would not be an issue.

So? Their store policy changed. So? Now imagine this. They complete the sale to the woman and the woman goes out front of the store and proclaims to the world that Walmart still supports the CBF.

The woman suffered no economic loss. Was not discriminated against because of any protected reason. And, if possible, can buy her ring somewhere other then Walmart. If we are going to argue that a person/business does not have to bake a cake then certainly we can argue that a person/business doesn't have to sell a Nazi SS ring or a ring with the CBF. (not comparing the two as equal) I leave it to the store to decide what and to whom they sell.

The lesbians were not discriminated against because they were lesbians

they absolutely were. products and services available to others were not available to them based on their sexual orientation

products and services were not available to the ring woman based on a politically correct motive. Just like the lesbians, except the baker didnt take their money then tell them the couldnt have the cake when the promised day came along. besides, the baker refused based on a wedding concept, not because they were lesbians. Im sure the baker would have been happy to bake them a cake for almost any other situation.
Ring lady has a stronger case.

 

[Moonglow]

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.

And Wal Mart will drag it out until there is no value in the restitution...

More likely: they would cut a check to get rid of her because it's cheaper than fighting it.

Wal Mart does not work that way...

 

[Freewill]

So? Their store policy changed. So? Now imagine this. They complete the sale to the woman and the woman goes out front of the store and proclaims to the world that Walmart still supports the CBF.

The woman suffered no economic loss. Was not discriminated against because of any protected reason. And, if possible, can buy her ring somewhere other then Walmart. If we are going to argue that a person/business does not have to bake a cake then certainly we can argue that a person/business doesn't have to sell a Nazi SS ring or a ring with the CBF. (not comparing the two as equal) I leave it to the store to decide what and to whom they sell.

The lesbians were not discriminated against because they were lesbians, Im sure that the bakery would have made a cake for them for a birthday party or something, It was a gay wedding that was the question. Gay weddings were not protected.
so just like the Confederate Flag, it was an idea that was denied, not the person.
The difference is that with the ring, the woman was now 2 weeks out from having the ring made. She did suffer more financial damage than the lesbians that could have turned around, gone to the non christan bakery down the road and had their cake made. the might have last a half hour or so of time.
I think the wal mart case is stronger.

What financial damage did the woman occur?

You can't, in my opinion, argue one against the other.

If she could not find a place to get the ring at the exact same price elsewhere, she has financial damages. Depending on the jurisdiction, it might be treble damages. She has equitable damages in that she did not get her ring on the date when promised.

She can still get a ring at Walmart for the same price.

and the lesbians could have still bought a cake. Whats your point?

People/business have the freedom to decide their policy. I have the freedom not to do business with them.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Walmart is entirely in the wrong. The woman had a contract with Walmart to sell her a legal product. Then they changed their policy. The contract was written under the old policy and the store had a contractual obligation to fulfill all orders under the store policy in effect when the contract was entered into. In placing the order, the woman justifiably relied on the representations of the store to enter into the contract.

It's very simple. The store has no defense.

you're absolutely right. they owe her a refund. she might be able to sue for additional money to have the ring rushed elsewhere. that'd be all though.

oh I disagree, now that the story is out and in the public, her image has been damaged.
She has a much stronger case.
I think wal mart should be forced to pay her damage, then forced to sell the confederate flag and make sure to promote decendants of Southern Civil war soldiers to management postions.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

The lesbians were not discriminated against because they were lesbians, Im sure that the bakery would have made a cake for them for a birthday party or something, It was a gay wedding that was the question. Gay weddings were not protected.
so just like the Confederate Flag, it was an idea that was denied, not the person.
The difference is that with the ring, the woman was now 2 weeks out from having the ring made. She did suffer more financial damage than the lesbians that could have turned around, gone to the non christan bakery down the road and had their cake made. the might have last a half hour or so of time.
I think the wal mart case is stronger.

What financial damage did the woman occur?

You can't, in my opinion, argue one against the other.

If she could not find a place to get the ring at the exact same price elsewhere, she has financial damages. Depending on the jurisdiction, it might be treble damages. She has equitable damages in that she did not get her ring on the date when promised.

She can still get a ring at Walmart for the same price.

and the lesbians could have still bought a cake. Whats your point?

People/business have the freedom to decide their policy. I have the freedom not to do business with them.

again I agree. The bakery has the freedom to decide their policy, consumers do not have to do business with them.

 

[ogibillm]

Walmart is entirely in the wrong. The woman had a contract with Walmart to sell her a legal product. Then they changed their policy. The contract was written under the old policy and the store had a contractual obligation to fulfill all orders under the store policy in effect when the contract was entered into. In placing the order, the woman justifiably relied on the representations of the store to enter into the contract.

It's very simple. The store has no defense.

you're absolutely right. they owe her a refund. she might be able to sue for additional money to have the ring rushed elsewhere. that'd be all though.

oh I disagree, now that the story is out and in the public, her image has been damaged.
She has a much stronger case.

and why is the story out? i doubt walmart is publicizing it. can't sue someone for damages you did to yourself - if she's been damaged at all.

I think wal mart should be forced to pay her damage, then forced to sell the confederate flag and make sure to promote decendants of Southern Civil war soldiers to management postions.

lol. that's insane

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Walmart is entirely in the wrong. The woman had a contract with Walmart to sell her a legal product. Then they changed their policy. The contract was written under the old policy and the store had a contractual obligation to fulfill all orders under the store policy in effect when the contract was entered into. In placing the order, the woman justifiably relied on the representations of the store to enter into the contract.

It's very simple. The store has no defense.

you're absolutely right. they owe her a refund. she might be able to sue for additional money to have the ring rushed elsewhere. that'd be all though.

oh I disagree, now that the story is out and in the public, her image has been damaged.
She has a much stronger case.

and why is the story out? i doubt walmart is publicizing it. can't sue someone for damages you did to yourself - if she's been damaged at all.

I think wal mart should be forced to pay her damage, then forced to sell the confederate flag and make sure to promote decendants of Southern Civil war soldiers to management postions.

lol. that's insane

Not insane when Jessie Jackass and Al Sharptongue demand the same to a business that actually did nothing wrong. Why is it insane here.
You would think the left would agree with me. They agree when its done to others, like, its ok to sue the bakery for doing less damage than wal mart did, but not ok to sue walmart because the liberals agree with them?

 

[JoeMoma]

What financial damage did the woman occur?

You can't, in my opinion, argue one against the other.

If she could not find a place to get the ring at the exact same price elsewhere, she has financial damages. Depending on the jurisdiction, it might be treble damages. She has equitable damages in that she did not get her ring on the date when promised.

She can still get a ring at Walmart for the same price.

and the lesbians could have still bought a cake. Whats your point?

People/business have the freedom to decide their policy. I have the freedom not to do business with them.

again I agree. The bakery has the freedom to decide their policy, consumers do not have to do business with them.

I also agree; however if a purchase agreement is made under an old policy, then it should be completed under that old policy. Contracts are not to be broken on a whim.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

If she could not find a place to get the ring at the exact same price elsewhere, she has financial damages. Depending on the jurisdiction, it might be treble damages. She has equitable damages in that she did not get her ring on the date when promised.

She can still get a ring at Walmart for the same price.

and the lesbians could have still bought a cake. Whats your point?

People/business have the freedom to decide their policy. I have the freedom not to do business with them.

again I agree. The bakery has the freedom to decide their policy, consumers do not have to do business with them.

I also agree; however if a purchase agreement is made under an old policy, then it should be completed under that old policy. Contracts are not to be broken on a whim.

and that contract that was paid for up front with Wal Mart for the ring, is exactly why the ring lady has a stronger case than the looking for attention lesbians.

 

[JoeMoma]

The lesbians were not discriminated against because they were lesbians, Im sure that the bakery would have made a cake for them for a birthday party or something, It was a gay wedding that was the question. Gay weddings were not protected.
so just like the Confederate Flag, it was an idea that was denied, not the person.
The difference is that with the ring, the woman was now 2 weeks out from having the ring made. She did suffer more financial damage than the lesbians that could have turned around, gone to the non christan bakery down the road and had their cake made. the might have last a half hour or so of time.
I think the wal mart case is stronger.

What financial damage did the woman occur?

You can't, in my opinion, argue one against the other.

If she could not find a place to get the ring at the exact same price elsewhere, she has financial damages. Depending on the jurisdiction, it might be treble damages. She has equitable damages in that she did not get her ring on the date when promised.

She can still get a ring at Walmart for the same price.

and the lesbians could have still bought a cake. Whats your point?

People/business have the freedom to decide their policy. I have the freedom not to do business with them.

The lady that bought the ring did not have the freedom to not do business with Walmart due to the anti- confederate flag policy. They accepted and processed her order and informed her of the policy change at the last moment. This is an example of an expo-facto policy decision.

 

[JoeMoma]

She can still get a ring at Walmart for the same price.

and the lesbians could have still bought a cake. Whats your point?

People/business have the freedom to decide their policy. I have the freedom not to do business with them.

again I agree. The bakery has the freedom to decide their policy, consumers do not have to do business with them.

I also agree; however if a purchase agreement is made under an old policy, then it should be completed under that old policy. Contracts are not to be broken on a whim.

and that contract that was paid for up front with Wal Mart for the ring, is exactly why the ring lady has a stronger case than the looking for attention lesbians.

Perhaps, but I dought that the ring lady will sue. Most people simply move on and live their lives. We know life is not always fair and get over things.

 

[ogibillm]

Walmart is entirely in the wrong. The woman had a contract with Walmart to sell her a legal product. Then they changed their policy. The contract was written under the old policy and the store had a contractual obligation to fulfill all orders under the store policy in effect when the contract was entered into. In placing the order, the woman justifiably relied on the representations of the store to enter into the contract.

It's very simple. The store has no defense.

you're absolutely right. they owe her a refund. she might be able to sue for additional money to have the ring rushed elsewhere. that'd be all though.

oh I disagree, now that the story is out and in the public, her image has been damaged.
She has a much stronger case.

and why is the story out? i doubt walmart is publicizing it. can't sue someone for damages you did to yourself - if she's been damaged at all.

I think wal mart should be forced to pay her damage, then forced to sell the confederate flag and make sure to promote decendants of Southern Civil war soldiers to management postions.

lol. that's insane

Not insane when Jessie Jackass and Al Sharptongue demand the same to a business that actually did nothing wrong. Why is it insane here.
You would think the left would agree with me. They agree when its done to others, like, its ok to sue the bakery for doing less damage than wal mart did, but not ok to sue walmart because the liberals agree with them?

the bakery discriminated and broke the law. walmart, in this circumstance, did not.
why don't you understand that? it's a simple concept.

 

[JoeMoma]

Walmart is entirely in the wrong. The woman had a contract with Walmart to sell her a legal product. Then they changed their policy. The contract was written under the old policy and the store had a contractual obligation to fulfill all orders under the store policy in effect when the contract was entered into. In placing the order, the woman justifiably relied on the representations of the store to enter into the contract.

It's very simple. The store has no defense.

you're absolutely right. they owe her a refund. she might be able to sue for additional money to have the ring rushed elsewhere. that'd be all though.

oh I disagree, now that the story is out and in the public, her image has been damaged.
She has a much stronger case.

and why is the story out? i doubt walmart is publicizing it. can't sue someone for damages you did to yourself - if she's been damaged at all.

I think wal mart should be forced to pay her damage, then forced to sell the confederate flag and make sure to promote decendants of Southern Civil war soldiers to management postions.

lol. that's insane

Not insane when Jessie Jackass and Al Sharptongue demand the same to a business that actually did nothing wrong. Why is it insane here.
You would think the left would agree with me. They agree when its done to others, like, its ok to sue the bakery for doing less damage than wal mart did, but not ok to sue walmart because the liberals agree with them?

the bakery discriminated and broke the law. walmart, in this circumstance, did not.
why don't you understand that? it's a simple concept.

I'm not a lawyer, but I would be surprised if Walmart did not break some type of contract law by reneging on the sales order that was paid for up front. Otherwise, contracts would be useless if parties are allowed to break them on a whim.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Walmart is entirely in the wrong. The woman had a contract with Walmart to sell her a legal product. Then they changed their policy. The contract was written under the old policy and the store had a contractual obligation to fulfill all orders under the store policy in effect when the contract was entered into. In placing the order, the woman justifiably relied on the representations of the store to enter into the contract.

It's very simple. The store has no defense.

you're absolutely right. they owe her a refund. she might be able to sue for additional money to have the ring rushed elsewhere. that'd be all though.

oh I disagree, now that the story is out and in the public, her image has been damaged.
She has a much stronger case.

and why is the story out? i doubt walmart is publicizing it. can't sue someone for damages you did to yourself - if she's been damaged at all.

I think wal mart should be forced to pay her damage, then forced to sell the confederate flag and make sure to promote decendants of Southern Civil war soldiers to management postions.

lol. that's insane

Not insane when Jessie Jackass and Al Sharptongue demand the same to a business that actually did nothing wrong. Why is it insane here.
You would think the left would agree with me. They agree when its done to others, like, its ok to sue the bakery for doing less damage than wal mart did, but not ok to sue walmart because the liberals agree with them?

the bakery discriminated and broke the law. walmart, in this circumstance, did not.
why don't you understand that? it's a simple concept.

you do know the difference between a unilateral and a bilateral contract right? and since you obviously know that difference, you also know the requirements for breaking those contracts and you also are able to identify which of the two contract types is in question with the WalMart issue.
so why do you even question this.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Walmart is entirely in the wrong. The woman had a contract with Walmart to sell her a legal product. Then they changed their policy. The contract was written under the old policy and the store had a contractual obligation to fulfill all orders under the store policy in effect when the contract was entered into. In placing the order, the woman justifiably relied on the representations of the store to enter into the contract.

It's very simple. The store has no defense.

you're absolutely right. they owe her a refund. she might be able to sue for additional money to have the ring rushed elsewhere. that'd be all though.

oh I disagree, now that the story is out and in the public, her image has been damaged.
She has a much stronger case.

and why is the story out? i doubt walmart is publicizing it. can't sue someone for damages you did to yourself - if she's been damaged at all.

I think wal mart should be forced to pay her damage, then forced to sell the confederate flag and make sure to promote decendants of Southern Civil war soldiers to management postions.

lol. that's insane

Not insane when Jessie Jackass and Al Sharptongue demand the same to a business that actually did nothing wrong. Why is it insane here.
You would think the left would agree with me. They agree when its done to others, like, its ok to sue the bakery for doing less damage than wal mart did, but not ok to sue walmart because the liberals agree with them?

the bakery discriminated and broke the law. walmart, in this circumstance, did not.
why don't you understand that? it's a simple concept.

the bakery did not break the law. They did not discriminate against them because they were lesbian, they chose not to take part in a same sex wedding, which was not considered a right at the time.
Same with Wal Mart case, they did not discrimnate against this woman for any reason, she could have bought a different ring, Wal Mart chose to illegally break a contract that had already been satisfied on the part of the buyer (her payment) because the did not want to be involved with a Confederate Flag sale.
Of course we could say that wal mart discriminated against her because she was a Redneck, but then we have that whole stereotyping issue that pops up.
Wal Mart was more in the wrong than the Bakery, the bakery did not take the money, form a contract and then break it once it was too late to secure the commodity in time.

 

[EverCurious]

You couldn't /pay/ me to buy a custom piece from Walmart frankly, but I do order custom jewelry quite often and in special orders there is most certainly a contractual order of some kind that flies in court; it details the customer's specifications and typically has at least two legal binders, the first being that custom orders are non-refundable and the second binder typically put in such orders is a timeline for delivery. Breech of contract on custom jewelry typically goes to court for things like customer non-payment, or if the jewelry designer doesn't stick to the agreed upon design, though I do recall that there was a case a while back where the designer took weeks longer than expected and a custom ring set was not ready in time for a wedding; though I do not actually recall what the outcome of that case was. (If I had to guess, I'd say the designer lost said case and likely had to pay some kind of emotional harm, weddings are pretty high up there on the emotion harm list.)

In any event, Walmart is smart to claim that the order was made after they changed the policy, doing such means that Walmart, at best, could possibly be held accountable for their employee's failure to know the companies policies or some such, but one would pretty much have to find a lawyer who hates Walmart enough to jump through those ify hoops because the harm done here is pretty slim so the compensation for emotional harm is almost non-existent. And honestly, for them to say that the order was made after the policy change, I'm guessing it is true - it's not like it wasn't widely publicized by the media when they rolled out that policy.

That said, had she not accepted the refund she might have had a higher financial return case as a bad faith breech since the sale of Confederate flag merchandise is not illegal (yet), having accepted the refund though I believe that actually satisfied the "legal" obligation of Walmart and renders a case rather impotent. With having accepted the refund, I think the customers only legal recourse now would be suing on the grounds of bad faith breech for emotional harm, which when taken in the context of the supposed emotional harm caused by selling Confederate merchandise that had actually prompted the change in Walmart policy, kind of cancels things out a bit. The "inconvenience" of the customer having to reorder the ring, combined with what appears (if Walmart is indeed telling the truth about the policy change and order dates) a very short delivery time of say around a week, would put this into a "frivolous lawsuit" gray area that lawyers and courts would likely shrug off.

Douchbag thing for Walmart to do imo, especially if it was actually ordered prior to the policy change, but with the PC mentality on their side in this case they won't really suffer any losses from customer outrage so mistreating their customer here is no tangible loss to them - though I suspect they are on the hook for the cost of the custom ordered ring as the jeweler who made it sure isn't going to eat the loss of either case (that the employee mistakenly ordered the ring after the policy change, or that the policy change itself prompted the refusal to sell it.) Although with them having said that the ring was ordered after the policy change, its actually legally possible that the employee be required to pay for the mistakenly accepted custom ring order.

Anyway, here's a brief legal blurb about "retail contracts" ~ Breach of Contract Material Breach Nolo.com

 

[ogibillm]

you're absolutely right. they owe her a refund. she might be able to sue for additional money to have the ring rushed elsewhere. that'd be all though.

oh I disagree, now that the story is out and in the public, her image has been damaged.
She has a much stronger case.

and why is the story out? i doubt walmart is publicizing it. can't sue someone for damages you did to yourself - if she's been damaged at all.

I think wal mart should be forced to pay her damage, then forced to sell the confederate flag and make sure to promote decendants of Southern Civil war soldiers to management postions.

lol. that's insane

Not insane when Jessie Jackass and Al Sharptongue demand the same to a business that actually did nothing wrong. Why is it insane here.
You would think the left would agree with me. They agree when its done to others, like, its ok to sue the bakery for doing less damage than wal mart did, but not ok to sue walmart because the liberals agree with them?

the bakery discriminated and broke the law. walmart, in this circumstance, did not.
why don't you understand that? it's a simple concept.

I'm not a lawyer, but I would be surprised if Walmart did not break some type of contract law by reneging on the sales order that was paid for up front. Otherwise, contracts would be useless if parties are allowed to break them on a whim.

you don't think contracts are broken all the time? of course they are, for a myriad of reasons, and when it happens the injured party has to be made whole, which in most cases involves a refund.

 

[ogibillm]

you're absolutely right. they owe her a refund. she might be able to sue for additional money to have the ring rushed elsewhere. that'd be all though.

oh I disagree, now that the story is out and in the public, her image has been damaged.
She has a much stronger case.

and why is the story out? i doubt walmart is publicizing it. can't sue someone for damages you did to yourself - if she's been damaged at all.

I think wal mart should be forced to pay her damage, then forced to sell the confederate flag and make sure to promote decendants of Southern Civil war soldiers to management postions.

lol. that's insane

Not insane when Jessie Jackass and Al Sharptongue demand the same to a business that actually did nothing wrong. Why is it insane here.
You would think the left would agree with me. They agree when its done to others, like, its ok to sue the bakery for doing less damage than wal mart did, but not ok to sue walmart because the liberals agree with them?

the bakery discriminated and broke the law. walmart, in this circumstance, did not.
why don't you understand that? it's a simple concept.

the bakery did not break the law.

your first sentence is not supported by fact. the bakery did break the law, they discriminated against customers due to their sexual orientation - such discrimination is forbidden by law. they were taken to court and lost their case. they broke the law. if you can't accept that, you aren't dealing with reality.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Its amazing how the liberals will defend not selling a harmless flag representation, but see nothing wrong with a baker not wanting to participate in a same sex wedding.
I guess it all comes down to liberals always thinking that what they think is the only right answer.
even though in this case the wal mart ring lady has more of a case considering the ring was already paid for and ready for pick up.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

oh I disagree, now that the story is out and in the public, her image has been damaged.
She has a much stronger case.

and why is the story out? i doubt walmart is publicizing it. can't sue someone for damages you did to yourself - if she's been damaged at all.

I think wal mart should be forced to pay her damage, then forced to sell the confederate flag and make sure to promote decendants of Southern Civil war soldiers to management postions.

lol. that's insane

Not insane when Jessie Jackass and Al Sharptongue demand the same to a business that actually did nothing wrong. Why is it insane here.
You would think the left would agree with me. They agree when its done to others, like, its ok to sue the bakery for doing less damage than wal mart did, but not ok to sue walmart because the liberals agree with them?

the bakery discriminated and broke the law. walmart, in this circumstance, did not.
why don't you understand that? it's a simple concept.

the bakery did not break the law.

your first sentence is not supported by fact. the bakery did break the law, they discriminated against customers due to their sexual orientation - such discrimination is forbidden by law. they were taken to court and lost their case. they broke the law. if you can't accept that, you aren't dealing with reality.

no, they did not. If they would have been willing to sell the two lesbians a birthday cake, or a fourth of july cake, or any other cake or pastry they made, then it is obvious that they were not discriminating against sexual orientation.
If the only thing they were unwilling to do was bake a cake for a wedding, then it is the gay wedding that they had issue with, which was not at the time considered a right.
Even still, if they are forced to make the cake, then their religious freedom is in question.