Originally Posted by zjpj83
The norms of contract law require you to return to a vendor a suit, originally bought and sold in good faith, when you work out so much that your suit size changes in the interim? What on earth are you talking about?
Nobody is being "ripped off" in the circumstances presented in this thread. And, by the way, the contract law remedy for being "ripped off" isn't to go and rip the other party off in response.
This is an incrementally better post than your previous one. Before, you were misreading my post and demonstrating a lack of basic principal-agency relationships. At least now you're getting to the good point made much earlier and with fewer words by Joel: that there may be a distinction between my situation and the OP's that renders my experience fairly off point.
Nevertheless, I disagree with you. I'm saying that if OP timely returns the suit and BB takes the return under the stipulations of its own return policy, this is sufficiently conclusive that OP has abided by his contract. Unless the return policy has a clause stating "buyer has a duty to volunteer information about any alterations he made to the goods, even in the absence
of being asked," there is no breach. Whether or not it is high-minded or not is strictly beside the point, if it's not in the contract.
Originally Posted by zjpj83
I sure wouldn't want you to be my lawyer.
A good lawyer makes the best possible argument for his client in a dispute where both sides have some tenable perspectives. I strongly suggest that if you are ever in need of legal counsel, you do not
seek out an attorney that will side with your counterparty-opponent, just because you're no "Robin Hood."
Originally Posted by NoVaguy
no. because you bought the suit in the first place, dumbass. what, are you going to argue that BB exerted undue influence in forcing you buy the wrong suit? that, somehow, their madras shorts and bowties manage to pressure you to the degree in which the free play of your will was overborne? that there is a duty to sell perfect fitting suits, and somehow, this duty was breached?
get outta here.
Thanks for participating!
The situation at hand has nothing to due with undue influence in the original transaction, when of course the buyer had free will. We were talking about whether, if the seller misrepresented his expertise about suit fits during the sale, it is inequitable for the buyer to make his own misrepresentation later on. (Basically, this would be a double standard.)
This is a totally distinct claim. Please make sure you've got things straight before being smug. Also, please keep in mind that ending sentences with "comma jackass" does not make you more convincing, only more immature!