Nice to know there is quality control in place! Nothing worse than getting parts that don't fit! Sounds like annealing the pipes didn't slow you down too much. Looking forward to hearing the results on your next round of inspections!:tiphat:

I have shown in multiple previous posts that a restocking fee can be charged on layaway items that are never in possession by the customer. This is common practise so I dont know why you are arguing that one.

I will now give some examples of several products which were offered by retailers under a layaway scheme but which were not yet finished or released.

Apple Iphone 5 (probably 2, 3, 3s, 4, 4s as well)
Samsung Galaxy S4
Playstation 4
Xbox 1

All of these were offered for sale via layaway long before they were ever finished or released. If Wallmart can do it with products that they have zero control over, then other companies can do it for the products that they actually produce.

I dont know what else I can do to show that GTM have every right to run a layaway program and charge a restocking fee on this product.

Once again, I'm not trying to defend them in any way. I wouldn't charge a fee after all the delays if I was them but the fact is that they have done nothing wrong. If you are angry at GTM for the neverending delays and poor communication, then fine, be angry (I am) but can people just stop making things up to try and make them look bad. Or at least go and make a new thread to do it in.

There are about 5-6 people here who should go and start a 'GTM sucks big hairy goats balls' thread and then they can have a wonderful time together. I for one would probably check it daily just for a laugh.

I believe all those products you mentioned had a release date and the buyer could look forward to on certain days for the finished product.

I think it all falls on the wording of the contract. If any one has that we would be obliged and it would end all this fuss.

But we all know with all the issues the moral thing to do is not charge these people the fee.

From a business point of you it's smart to charge it. That's just how the world works.

Sent with TapAhoe

Pretty sure nearly every iphone was delayed... Just an FYI. But The Holy church of apple fanatics will sell their children into slavery for one.

Lol no way you're gonna compare those delays to this kind of delay

You'd be surprised how long some of those delays are. 3-6 months is nothing. The only reason it's something here is because it's a lot of money.

Anyways, if you want to see what this whole thing is a classic case of... Read this
The Osbourne effect Minus the obsolete thing.

Who cares what the contract really said. The guy should have paid it in full and demanded his product.

This is all academic anyway. Most people aren't local and wouldn't be taking any court action. What could/would happen in court doesn't mean much. Bottom line is GTM should have "bought" some good will and future sales with the customer by refunding the money OR offering fair prices on what he wanted to buy in place.

I am pretty certain that many items can be 'pre-ordered' and layaway terms offered well before a release date is known and sometimes even before a final price is known, so this statement is basically null and void. Pre-order is basically a form of layaway anyway. Put down deposit, wait for product to be released, pay balance. Pretty sure that you can generally cancel a pre-order at no cost though but the layaway cancellation would still apply.

I don't see how that makes any difference anyway. Release date or no release date, the contract is still the contract. If there is a law that states that for any layaway deal to be entered into there must be a specific delivery date, then that's something completely different. Failing that, then I don't see how a lack of exact release date makes any difference. No one has shown us anything that states that the law is one way or the other.

If the contract is signed without any specific release date then the customer has no come back. Morally it is different story but contractually not.

Nice find Firehawk. GTM should have read this 8 months ago!

Gtm is good in my book. As far as I'm concerned they have done nothing wrong, and in no way do I feel like they are taking our money. Anywhere you go you will have fees. That is to protect them. It may be delayed, but that's the world we live in today, everything gets delayed it seems. The product will be worth the wait.

Please just stop guessing what our laws are over here. If there is no performance date in the contract, the judge will apply what he or she feels is reasonable.

It boils down to customer service and respect for the community and its individuals. That's it.

Sent with TapAhoe

Which is......?
I asked you that before.....6 months? 12 months? 5 years?

I have openly invited someone to show me any laws that govern this particular area but no one has responded. It's easy to make statements about what would/should happen without providing any precedent.

Someone mentioned that there was a $1000 non-refundable deposit for the Fast Intentions TT kit pre-order. I don't whether this is true or not as i have only followed that thread very sporadically (and full of jealousy I should add :P). For someone who decided to pull out of their Fast Intentions TT kit pre-order (before the release date was actually announced), would your advice be that they should request their $1000 back?

If Tony said 'No. We had an agreement and I have now invested money into a kit that you no longer want. The $1000 is to cover my costs and you were well aware of this fact when you signed up.' Would your suggestion be for the purchaser to sue Tony and Fast Intentions?

I don't want to turn this into a vendor vs vendor situation, it's just a perfect comparison.

Just let it sink in a bit - the judge will make a call based on the evidence presented. What that ruling may be depends on THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED. The customer may print this entire thread and say "look, the vendor is not providing regular updates, has clear supply chain problems, and can not promise any performance date on our contract". The judge may say a reasonable time has already passed and void the contract.

Like I said multiple times, the customer should have paid off the contract and then demanded performance from GTM. That removes the fee from the picture entirely, but I could understand why they wouldn't want to take the chance unless they were local.