• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Sue Merchant For Negligence - Wrong Product Sent - Fired Because of it

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
I live in FL. The company is outside of the state. I checked the specs upon ordering, hence why I was surprised when I received it. I had to wait 2 days to get, which was out of my control (the earliest I could get it). I was on the phone w/ the company's tech reps for most of the evening, which made for a late night purchase. I had to wait until 11:30am for the new one to arrive and upon set up, I learned it wasn't fast enough.
You could have bought a laptop off the shelf at any number of local establishments.
 


Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
Thanks for your insight. This scenario is an interesting one. I recognized the company's IT dept to be lack of skill and urgency as well.
That sentence doesn't make sense.
I have a laptop that passed the initial inspection, the tech couldn't figure out an update feature to work w/ an external drive they required.
This was the reason, I attempted to purchase a new laptop. I thought it would be easier on them...perhaps the outcome was a blessing.
Qualifying for training via the incompetent tech staff, was writing on the wall of future painful technical episodes.
The tech staff wasn't incompetent. It's not their job to update your personal equipment.
 
If you can't be civil to the volunteers of this site go elsewhere. Zigner said nothing to warrant your rude comment.
I am being civil and his comment did warrant my response. First violation, he responded to note that wasn't directed to him. Second violation, the actual reply message.
HIS RESPONSE: "It was an absolutely clear response. It clearly states that you aren't going to be successful in any civil suit against the seller."
The original person who posted the reply, had no issue of clarifying his response to me, so why was it necessary for Zigner to chime in?

I would say that you and Zigner share the same attitude and I don't need it from you or him.
 

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
I am being civil and his comment did warrant my response. First violation, he responded to note that wasn't directed to him. Second violation, the actual reply message.
HIS RESPONSE: "It was an absolutely clear response. It clearly states that you aren't going to be successful in any civil suit against the seller."
The original person who posted the reply, had no issue of clarifying his response to me, so why was it necessary for Zigner to chime in?

I would say that you and Zigner share the same attitude and I don't need it from you or him.
That's not how it works on a public message board.

Look - I'm not saying this to be mean, rude, or snarky: You really need to work on your communication skills. I believe that your difficulty in communicating effectively is going to hurt you more in your search for employment than anything else will.

Good luck to you.
 

quincy

Senior Member
It is nice that you see an upside to the botched laptop order.

When you order anything online, you are doing so with some faith and with crossed fingers that the merchandise received will be as ordered and the merchandise will be delivered in a timely fashion.

When there is a lot at stake (like a job), it can be smart to have "back up" plans so that you are not relying entirely on everything going just right.
 
That's not how it works on a public message board.

Look - I'm not saying this to be mean, rude, or snarky: You really need to work on your communication skills. I believe that your difficulty in communicating effectively is going to hurt you more in your search for employment than anything else will.

Good luck to you.
Glad to know you didn't come from a malicious place. Everyone has their own style of communicating, however I don't think that's my biggest challenge here. I am not focusing 100% of my energy on this forum, so perhaps a few words got mixed up in a sentence. Typos aren't a defining moment of my ultimate ability to express thought via written words. I have a job and the one that I recently lost was a part-time position to make some extra money. Thanks for your input.
 
It is nice that you see an upside to the botched laptop order.

When you order anything online, you are doing so with some faith and with crossed fingers that the merchandise received will be as ordered and the merchandise will be delivered in a timely fashion.

When there is a lot at stake (like a job), it can be smart to have "back up" plans so that you are not relying entirely on everything going just right.
Very true and I learned my lesson.
 

Taxing Matters

Overtaxed Member
What is the name of your state? QUESTION: Can I establish a civil case against a retail merchant who sold me a computer under false pretenses (phone sales combined w/ live chat), that resulted in losing my job (due to incompatibility)?
SCENARIO: I gave specs for a laptop needed to start training for new job. Was sent a laptop with inadequate processor speed, failed tech inspection w/ new company and lost my job because of it.
Let me give you more of a legal explanation than you have been given so far. You dealt with the merchant to order a specific computer on behalf of your employer. The computer, according to you, did not meet the requirements you gave to the seller. That is a contract issue. Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) is the primary law that governs the sales of goods in the states that have adopted it, which is all states but Louisiana. And under the UCC when you order goods to be delivered the buyer has a right to inspect the goods upon delivery and reject them if they are nonconforming (i.e. do not meet the requirements of the contract). The seller then has the right to cure by sending the right product. If it does that then it has met the contract and owes nothing further. If the seller fails to cure then the buyer may have a good claim for breach of contract. But in contract claims generally all that may be recovered is the amount that would make the buyer whole, which is typically the price difference between the price set in the contract for the good and what the buyer had to pay to get the right item somewhere else. So if the contract price of the laptop was $1,000 and to get that exact laptop from another seller cost the buyer $1,075 then all the buyer could get in a lawsuit is the $75 difference. The whole idea of contract law is to give the parties the benefit of the bargain they struck. For the buyer, that means getting the item he wanted at the agreed price, and that $75 gets him the laptop he wanted for the agreed upon price of $1,000.

Notably, what you typically do NOT get in contract claims are what in the law are known as consequential damages. These are damages that occur because of the breach beyond simply getting what is needed to get you the benefit of the bargain you struck, which for a buyer of goods means damages other than simply getting the right item he wanted at the agreed price. Your termination because of the botched sale would be a consequential damage. And in most contract cases you won't get those if you sue for breach. The exception in some states is that if the breaching party had reason to know at the time the contract was made that the additional consequence would occur the breaching party may be liable for that consequence. So had you put the seller on notice at the time you negotiated the contract that if it screwed up the order you'd be fired then you might have had a claim if you were the actual buyer. The idea behind putting the other party on notice of the potential consequence is so that the other party can take extra care with the contract to ensure it won't get stuck being liable for that problem. If it has no idea a particular consequence will happen as a result of the breach then it is considered unfair to hold the party liable for it. If your company was the actual buyer and not you, then you run into the problem that even if the seller knew you'd get fired that's not a damage suffered by the person it is contracting with — your company — and thus there'd be nothing for which your company to sue the seller for that.

It would be different if this were a tort (negligence) claim. But the law of tort does not apply to this. It is purely a contract issue.
 
Last edited:

quincy

Senior Member
Let me give you more of a legal explanation than you have been given so far. You dealt with the merchant to order a specific computer on behalf of your employer. The computer, according to you, did not meet the requirements you gave to the seller. That is a contract issue. Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) is the primary law that governs the sales of goods in the states that have adopted it, which is all states but Louisiana. And under the UCC when you order goods to be delivered the buyer has a right to inspect the goods upon delivery and reject them if they are nonconforming (i.e. do not meet the requirements of the contract). The seller then has the right to cure by sending the right product. If it does that then it has met the contract and owes nothing further. If the seller fails to cure then the buyer may have a good claim for breach of contract. But in contract claims generally all that may be recovered is the amount that would make the buyer whole, which is typically the price difference between the price set in the contract for the good and what the buyer had to pay to get the right item somewhere else. So if the contract price of the laptop was $1,000 and to get that exact laptop from another seller cost the buyer $1,075 then all the buyer could get in a lawsuit is the $75 difference. The whole idea of contract law is to give the parties the benefit of the bargain they struck. For the buyer, that means getting the item he wanted at the agreed price, and that $75 gets him the laptop he wanted for the agreed upon price of $1,000.

Notably, what you typically do NOT get in contract claims are what in the law are known as consequential damages. These are damages that occur because of the breach beyond simply getting what is needed to get you the benefit of the bargain you struck, which for a buyer of goods means damages other than simply getting the right item he wanted at the agreed price. Your termination because of the botched sale would be a consequential damage. And in most contract cases you won't get those if you sue for breach. The exception in some states is that if the breaching party had reason to know at the time the contract was made that the additional consequence would occur the breaching party may be liable for that consequence. So had you put the seller on notice at the time you negotiated the contract that if it screwed up the order you'd be fired then you might have had a claim if you were the actual buyer. The idea behind putting the other party on notice of the potential consequence is so that the other party can take extra care with the contract to ensure it won't get stuck being liable for that problem. If it has no idea a particular consequence will happen as a result of the breach then it is considered unfair to hold the party liable for it. If your company was the actual buyer and not you, then you run into the problem that even if the seller knew you'd get fired that's not a damage suffered by the person it is contracting with — your company — and thus there'd be nothing for which your company to sue the seller for that.

It would be different if this were a tort (negligence) claim. But the law of tort does not apply to this. It is purely a contract issue.
The laptop wasn't ordered on behalf of his employer. It was ordered so ccklegaladvice could get a job with the employer. For the job, he needed a laptop with a particular processing speed - and that is not what was sent.

The retailer cannot be held liable for the job loss. The retailer is responsible for replacing the laptop with the correct one.
 

Taxing Matters

Overtaxed Member
The laptop wasn't ordered on behalf of his employer. It was ordered so ccklegaladvice could get a job with the employer. For the job, he needed a laptop with a particular processing speed - and that is not what was sent.
That is certainly one possibility based on what the OP wrote, but I didn't see anywhere where he/she expressly stated that. In any event, I covered both possibilities in my post.

The retailer cannot be held liable for the job loss. The retailer is responsible for replacing the laptop with the correct one.
Yes, I think I explained that in some detail. ;)
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top