Midwest Hunter's Outlet TGSCOM Woes- SCAM ALERT

[Graf von Spee]

So on 22nd November 2011 I placed an order on the phone for a Savage 10FP rifle from Midwest Hunter Outlet, for $503.99 and they told me it wouldn't be but a week or so and the rifle would be at the store of the FFL dealer I picked (they already had him on file).

After a week I called to inquire if there was a problem with my order and they said that somebody else had snagged the last one by ordering just before me and that it would only take a week or so for more to come in and they would ship the rifle out ASAP. At this point I noticed that the price on their website had since changed to $631 dollars.

I had a conversation with them on the 22nd of December, stressing that it had been an entire month and I had not received my rifle. I did not mention the FTC’s Mail or Telephone Order Merchandise Trade Regulation Rule but it was in my mind and I sort of implied about "the rule" by referring to the fact, "it has now been thirty days and I don't have my item..." They said it would only be upwards of one more week and then I would have it... I consented to the delay/extension of time allowed (FTC regulations allow a business 30 days from the time an order is made to ship the order, unless otherwise agreed/specified by the customer, otherwise a FULL and total refund must be made).


I have yet to hear from them and my rifle is not at the FFL, after googling and reading about them I have discovered they have a D- rating from the Better Business Bureau, and that there are a half-dozen threads on twice as many forums devoted to people who have been ripped off by this company.

It seems they do not intend to deliver my Savage 10FP rifle, certainly not at the originally contracted price of $503.99 when the price on their site is now $631 dollars.

It has occurred to me that their "15% restocking fee for canceled orders" is a crucial part of their scam operation.

They offer very attractive low prices, below anybody else, enticing business from price conscious consumers. Customers place orders and the store pledges to fulfill the order and ship the item within a week... Days turn into weeks, weeks turn into months, after 4-8 weeks most customers, in disgust, cancel their orders, incurring a 15% restocking fee that they do not realize is invalid and in these circumstances (under federal law), illegal.


I intend to call them up at the start of business this coming week and offer them one last chance to honor our contract. If they give me any gruff or if they even utter the words "restocking fee" I will be contacting the FBI, the FTC, the Ohio state attorney general, and the state attorney general in the state in which they operate, along with local law enforcement/fraud division in the city in which they are located.

It is my opinion, from everything I have read on this company, that they do very little actual business and that most of their revenue probably comes from "restocking fees" on canceled orders for merchandise they never have in stock and never intend to actually sell or deliver to the customer.


Federal law declares that a merchant has 30 days to ship an item from the time the order is made, from what I have read of Midwest Hunter's Outlet/TGSCOM they have more cancelations than happy customers, and those few customers who receive their orders typically have to make a half-dozen phonecalls over a 30-45 day period, with some people having to wait up to 60 days to receive their order.


http://business.ftc.gov/documents/bus02-business-guide-mail-and-telephone-order-merchandise-rule


http://www.bbb.org/wisconsin/busine...upplies/tgs-com-inc-in-green-bay-wi-44039424/



I have no intention of paying any sort of restocking fee. I will either receive my rifle at the originally contracted price, or I will receive a cancelation of the order without incurring any sort of bogus restocking fee. I refuse to accept that they have to "restock" something that was never in stock in a situation that federal law states I am entitled to a full refund.

If they want to push me I will involve the FBI, local authorities, and state consumer protection personnel in both states and then give the details as to how I think the TGSOM scam operates.



Anybody else have any dealings with this terrible outfit?

 

[gavelwacker]

Come on, Graf von Spee, Tell us how you REALLY feel....

Awaiting the continuation of this thread. I love to see scammers getting called out!

 

[9mmsubgun-m11]

Did you pay with a credit card? If so you have additional rights. I will usually pay with a credit card just to have additional protection/options.

 

[Graf von Spee]

Come on, Graf von Spee, Tell us how you REALLY feel....

Awaiting the continuation of this thread. I love to see scammers getting called out!

There's two things about me... For the honest merchants/stores, I am their best friend, I am a loyal customer and I refer a lot of business to decent places. For the dishonest merchant I am a horrible enemy, I file complaints with the state attorney general, I dispute cancelation/restocking fees, etc.

I have never frivolously canceled an order of any sort, in fact I can scarcely think of a single order I've ever canceled anywhere.

There have been a few times where merchandise arrived, broken, and despite the store insisting on a "no return" policy I declared to them, "pursuant to -insert relevant state code and UCC section here- I am revoking my acceptance due to non-conforming goods."

I bought a night vision scope that was listed "as is" but also listed and guaranteed to function normally and the darn thing would not shut off, it just would not shut off. I'm presently studying electronic engineering technology and I had an electrical engineer looking at it while I was on the phone and the merchant could only repeat his own insane idea that we were operating it wrong and I said "we've done everything you told us to do, it doesn't shut off, no button or knob makes it shut off, we have to take the batteries out to get it to go off, in addition to the problem with the view, it is absolutely not generation 2, not even generation 1, it is clearly broken and the engineer standing right next to me declares it was broken."

The merchant then said, "well they are clearly listed as-is, no warranty express or implied, I'm not giving you a refund" and I stated, "yes I understand that, but the ad also said they were functional and would perform normally, a specific claim, they do not perform as indicated."

He then said, "well I'll make an exception for you and let you exchange it" and I said, "shipping was $35 dollars, I'm not going to mess around shipping it back to you, having another one shipped back to me and incur multiple shipping charges, I really need a refund" and he said "we don't do refunds it is not our policy" and I said "well okay, I'm going to make a call to the state attorney general in your state and the Ohio..." he interrupted me said "fine if that's how you want to play it, send the damn thing back and you'll get your refund, I can't deal with people like you, send it back and you'll get your money!" and then he ended the call. I sent it back (at my own expense) and received my full refund.

This guy was acting like he was going to do me a favor by exchanging a non-functional item, with the expectation that I would pick up shipping on both ends! At that point an exchange was out of the question because I knew if the exchange came through non-functional I'd have more trouble, so I knew I had to get a refund, no negotiating.

I had a store advertise WASR-10 rifles, on a Black Friday special, $339.99 each. I was the first one into the store when it opened and I said to the manager, who was working the gun counter, "I'd like three of the WASR-10 rifles please!"

He then said, "we can't honor that ad right now, we're out of stock, but we have black synthetic stock for only $550 dollars..."

My jaw dropped and I said to him, "you mean to tell me that for the last three weeks you've been running this ad for a special sale, a big sale, that you knew was coming up, and you don't even have one of the rifles in stock?"

I then said, "if you'll sell the synthetic stock WASR-10s for $339.99 I'll take them, but I'm not paying $550 dollars."

He then said, "I'm sorry we cannot do that..." so I asked for and received three rain-checks for the WASR-10 with wood-stocks for $339.99 dollars.

About four weeks went by and I had called twice and each time they said they were unable to honor the rain-checks because they had none in-stock and they couldn't just bring them in from another store due to shipping issues, blah, blah, blah.

I made a phone-call to the State Attorney General's office, consumer desk, and reported what I thought was misleading advertising, deceptive advertising, and bait and switch. I explained, "it is my view that they advertised something they did not have in stock and did not intend to have in stock, to stimulate demand and bring customers into the store, for the express purpose of then pushing them to buy a virtually identical item at a much higher price. The only difference between the two items being that one has a wooden stock and the other has a black synthetic stock."

TWO DAYS after the State Attorney General took down my complaint the store's corporate HQ had dispatched a letter to me (which arrived two days after they sent it) stating, "we would be glad to complete the transaction at the price advertised at the time you received your rain-check, for the three rifles in questions, we are shipping rifles from another store to the store in your area" along with the usual "contingent upon completing the necessary background checks" etc, that the sale would go forward.

Funny how they were able to find the rifles in another store and they were suddenly willing to honor their advertise and their raincheck after the State Attorney General wound up involved.


I've had a number of other run-ins with false advertising, deceptive advertising, etc, but a number of issues involve confidentiality agreements so I wouldn't ever be able to discuss the names/locations of the stores or give more than just publicly available details.


During that same Black Friday as the WASR-10s, there was a shopping mall that ran advertisements and posted on their own website that the first 200 customers would receive $200 dollar gift cards and that one lucky customer would receive a $1,000 dollar gift card.

I was the fourth person in line, my father was the fifth person, and my friend (a United States Marine) was the sixth person in line. We waited from about 8 pm to 6 am when the mall opened. By the time the mall opened there was a crowd of about 800 people. Mall security and mall officials were watching us throughout the night and could easily tell that a HUGE crowd had formed. They had signs posted on the entrance doors, "line up here, the mall will open at 6 am, the first 200 people will receive their SPECIAL GIFT as advertised."

When the doors opened a lone security woman emerged and declared, "there was a misprint, you won't be getting $200 dollars! The ad and the website supposed to read $20 dollars!" and it appeared as though she might have a riot on her hands. I screamed, "BREACH OF CONTRACT!" because in my mind they made an offer, "be one of the first 200 people at the door when the mall opens and receive a 200 dollar gift card" and I accepted by being at the mall when they opened and being one of the first 200 people. On the night in question it was probably never above 10 degrees but I dressed for the weather and managed to get by fairly well, but not everybody had dressed so well and a lot of people were yelling and about ready to warm themselves up by fighting. The woman screamed, "anybody who doesn't like it can go to jail!"

Under protest, I accepted the $20 dollar card, mainly because I needed evidence that I had been one of the first 200 people and thus was covered by their offer. My father and I contacted the state attorney general and reported them for using deceptive advertising to draw a crowd. My logic, explained to the state attorney general was, "it is my view that they deliberately and knowingly posted $200 dollars on their website knowing that such an offer would draw an enormous crowd to this small town shopping mall, and then at the time the mall opened they declared that there was an error, counting on the fact that people had come from other counties, and that most people would proceed into the mall and shop even though they'd be upset, so they figured that they could draw a huge crowd by printing an ad and publishing on their website that they were giving away $200 dollar cards. At no time during the night did the numerous mall managers or mall security who saw the crowd and waved to members of the crowd come out and inform them that there was an "error" so that people could go home instead of continuing their ten hour long wait, they waited until the mall opened to declare this so-called mistake."

The attorney general saw it my way and opened an investigation against the mall, at which time I received a letter from the mall and my father received a letter from the mall, making an offer (the terms of which I cannot disclose) inquiring as to whether or not we would drop the matter (and not discuss it with the media/local media) in exchange for their offer. I cannot go into any of the particulars other than to say that the matter was resolved amicably (at least from the perspective of my father and I).



On the other hand when a merchant tries really hard to make something right, and it is not his fault, I can never blame him. I've purchased guns from some stores that didn't work right out of the box and the merchant sympathized, apologized (even though it was NOT his fault), and took care of shipping it back to the factory so I wouldn't have to deal with UPS next-day-air handgun fees. I still frequent these merchants and I strongly recommend them to any/all friends and people who inquire as to where to go to purchase their first firearm.


My theory is, "if somebody is deceptive, misleading, crooked, and I have to dispute a charge with a bank or go to the attorney general, to resolve a situation, then I cannot deal with them and don't want to deal with them. However, if something is broken or doesn't work the way it ought to, and they do what they can to make it right, even if the manufacturer bails and doesn't honor a warranty, I can still deal with that sort of merchant because they're honest and they try."


My grandpa bought a new TV and about 4 months later the picture tube went to hell. It was a few days out of the 90 day warranty but there is a provision in the UCC that is drawn from the common law, the implied warranty of merchantability, implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, and a general idea that the goods will last a "reasonable" time (reasonable to vary depending on the nature of the goods). Essentially if you buy a new TV, even without a warranty, unless you agree to buy it "as is" with no warranties express or implied (with the exception of specific guarantees made about its functionality), you always have recourse.

Essentially you can declare a contract void due to "failure of consideration" in that you give money/check in consideration for goods that will do X, Y, and/or Z. If you buy a new refrigerator with a 90 day warranty and 91 days later it dies, you can dispute the charges or stop payment on the check, or whatever it may be, on the grounds of "failure of consideration" because no reasonable person would accept the idea that an appliance should only last 90 days (generally courts have held that 2-3 years is the acceptable "reasonable time" for minimum life of an appliance)...

Anyway, my grandpa called the TV store and they told him to deal with the manufacturer, and the manufacturer told him he was somewhere around 5-8 days out of warranty and too bad, so sad, etc, so he called the TV store back and they told him to get lost that he was not their problem. He then said, "I really think you should do right by me, this TV is less than four months old" at which time they told him "but your warranty is 90 days, buy a new one or pay to get it fixed, it isn't our problem."

He then told them, "I'm going to give you two options, so listen closely, here they are... You fix it, at your cost, or I'm going to come down to your store in the early evening when you have it packed full of customers, and I'm going to throw the broken set through your front window, sure I'll go to jail for a few nights but you're going to get so much publicity and everybody in town is going to know that you sell junk and stick it to people if it breaks down just a few days out of your warranty... I paid good money for the set, you want to fix the set or fix your window?"

At that point they told him "just bring the damn thing in and we'll fix it for you."


I would never threaten a business or a person with any sort of property damage/vandalism, but the principle of "failure of consideration" is clear in my grandfather's dealing with the business. With no legal training/education it is doubtful he knew the term "failure of consideration" but he certainly knew the principle "even though this is out of warranty, a reasonable guy expects a TV to last more than just 4 months."

Whenever I'm in a store buying a new electronic device and they try to sell me the extended warranty saying, "sir you can extend the warranty from 90 days to 180 days for only X more" I just chuckle and say, "oh no, I don't need that, this item will last me at least one or two years or I'll terminate the contract due to failure of consideration, if it were to fail in 91 days I'd be getting a full refund."

If one party commits a material breach the other party may rescind/terminate the contract at his own discretion. Failure of consideration is a major issue. Even so, when I say that, most clerks just chuckle or they just go on their business, they don't know what I'm talking about and I'm not trying to beat them with knowledge, I've worked retail before and I think my polite yet firm explanation is more respectful than a lot of the "the hell with your extended warranty!" or "You're not scamming me buster!" that I had to endure. Besides, it might spark their curiosity into "failure of consideration" and get them googling.

If more people knew about merchant obligations and consumer rights in regards to "failure of consideration" there'd be a lot more smiling consumers and a lot more frowning merchants.

 

[Graf von Spee]

Did you pay with a credit card? If so you have additional rights. I will usually pay with a credit card just to have additional protection/options.

I use debit card for everything, my bank has never sided against me when I've had disputes with debit card. As of right now they haven't charged me, they did do a "hold place" where they put a charge through but then they removed it. They said they will bill when they ship, but I am about to cancel the order and since they have my information they may try to hit me with that restocking fee.

Once I explain the FTC rule on shipping an order within 30 days, and how they breached the rule/law, I am sure my bank will side with me and cancel any "restocking" charge that they try to slap me with.

 

[Graf von Spee]

I'm going to write an article on how to negotiate, how to deal with people, how to barter, and how to practically apply the UCC in your daily life...


As a basic thought, my dad was at a ham fest selling items and I was with him to help. He was pricing the items with the price he wanted, fairly low prices, since he didn't want to haggle. One item was stickered "$20 dollars" and a guy came by and offered him $10 dollars and my dad explained to him, "I'm sorry, I cannot accept $10 dollars, $20 is the lowest I can go, I'm pricing these to sell..."

After the guy walked away I asked my dad, "do you want $20 dollars?" and he said, "yes of course I do, I want $20 dollars for that..." I then said to him, "take the sticker off and make a new one that says $30 dollars, then when somebody comes by you let them push you down to $20 dollars, you both win... They get the item they want to buy along with the psychological victory of having argued you down in price, and you get the actual sum of money you want..."

My dad changed the sticker and not 25 minutes went by when that same guy came walking by, he stopped dead in his tracks and looked at the item and said, "oh my, I didn't see you wanted $30 dollars for that, I'm so sorry, I could have sworn it said $20 dollars... I'd have never insulted you with an offer of $10 dollars if I saw it priced for $30 dollars, would you be willing to take $20 dollars for it?" and my dad said "sold" and sold the item to the guy. I then explained to my dad, "most people at places such as this are looking for more than just an item, there is added value in haggling, you cannot price the item with what you want to get, you have to price twenty to thirty percent above what you want to get, and you let the person negotiate with you, by pricing high you have room to fall back, if you start low you can never go high, you start high and you move back a bit when they negotiate."

People don't just want to buy items, they want to feel as though they won a victory by negotiating the price down. If you want $500 dollars for a gun, pricing it at $500 dollars is a sure way to get offers of $400 or $450. If you want $500 price it at $600 and then let somebody haggle you down to $500, that's my policy.

I told my dad, "always haggle, there are only a few things that can happen when you low-ball somebody... A lot of times they will take it, more often than not they will meet you in the middle, seldom will they be so offended by your offer that they refuse to deal with, that last one is rare, so always haggle... And count on everybody else always wanting to haggle, so price high and let them lower you, but only to a point, sell at a price you are comfortable with and that they are willing to pay. Few people are intimidated by a price, they see it as an invitation to make an offer and start haggling... Just don't price too high or they may figure they'll never be able to negotiate you down to what they want..."

My dad has always operated on the idea/policy of "price the item with the actual price I want to receive." My dad wants $20 dollars so he stickers an item for $20 dollars.

I've always operated on the idea/policy of "price the item so that when haggling and negotiation is over, I get the price I want to receive." I want $20 dollars so I sticker an item for at least $25 dollars, usually $30 dollars.

I go by the 20-30% rule, always price 20-30% higher than what you actually desire.

 

[BeltFedEd]

Does anyone have an abridged edition of this thread?

 

[Graf von Spee]

Does anyone have an abridged edition of this thread?

If you want to pick up some knowledge on the practical application of common law principles, and the Uniform Commercial Code, it is worth the read. If you have any specific questions I will field them as best I am able to.

 

[totenkopf]

i appreciate the details that you have laid out. very informative. it is like the clark howard of uzitalk.

 

[gavelwacker]

I wholeheartedly support you actions and the methods that you are using to rectify the situation. More people need to stand up for what is right and not let merchants rip them off with scams such as these!

 

[Surly]

My rule is: if it sounds too good to be true...

 

[Graf von Spee]

I wholeheartedly support you actions and the methods that you are using to rectify the situation. More people need to stand up for what is right and not let merchants rip them off with scams such as these!

A while ago I bought a pair of wiley X goggles and they were advertised as "fog proof" and I figured they would be nice to have, so I bought a pair. It was the cheapest site I could find them at, around $80 dollars. They fogged up within seconds whenever I did anything other than look perfectly straight ahead (looking up, looking down, outside in temperatures below 50 degrees).

I emailed the merchant and explained the basics of the problem and stated that I would need a refund due to non-conforming goods. Although I did inquire as to whether or not my use of anti-fogging techniques, such as applying spit or tooth-paste (common practices used by SCUBA divers) would void the option to return the item, because I was willing to try those techniques as long as it wouldn't impact my ability to receive a refund if they still offered no fog resistance.

He sent me an EIGHT page single spaced reply in which he called me a disgusting creep and insisted I did not deserve a refund of any sort, nor an exchange, he also denounced me as "disgusting and vile" for suggesting putting spit and/or tooth-paste on tactical goggles. He said that under no terms would I receive a refund.

I then sent him a 2-3 paragraph reply stating that I would be returning the goggles and that I would be expecting a refund. He then sent me a SIX page single spaced response denouncing me, insulting my college (I used my college email account), and stating he would refuse delivery of the package and that I was not getting a refund from him, ever.

At that point I printed out copies of the email exchange, I showed them to one of my law professors, explained the situation, and he advised me to dispute the charge with the bank and contact the company in question. He also said that the guy was clearly crazy and asked if he could take the email exchange, blank out my name, and show it to a prosecutor friend of his just for laughs. He later told me, "the prosecutor I showed that email exchange too, he said he'd never seen anything quite like that, he'd never seen a sales transaction dispute even approach that sort of thing, he thought the guy was totally nuts."

I went to the bank and disputed the charges, explained the situation, and they put the money back on my debit card after I showed them the advertisement from the website and explained "the goods did not conform to the advertisement."

The guy disputed my dispute and the bank then said, "we will need an expert, such as an engineer, to sign off that the goods are non-conforming" so I had an engineer from General Electric examine the goggles and he filled out a report that they were not fog proof (as advertised) or even fog resistant, and that they were non-conforming. The engineer did this report on company letterhead and after submitting his report the merchant sent a LONG letter to the company threatening to sue their company for costing him $80 dollars. He ended up sending several more threatening letters to General Electric until they had their legal department tell him that any further letters would be considered as harassment and grounds for a lawsuit.

About the same time I contacted Wiley and explained the situation to them and suggested that they not deal with this guy as he was giving them a lot of bad press... Wiley then dropped a bombshell on me, they said, "this guy is not on our list of authorized dealers, we don't even know if he is dealing genuine Wiley goggles, we cannot say... Can you do us a favor, send us a complete copy of the email exchange, the goggles you bought from him, and anything else related to this situation, such as the ad from his website and your invoice? We're going to send you a pair of goggles direct from our factory." I then said to them, "well I've received a full refund via my bank, so do I need to send you a check or anything for the goggles you're sending me?" and they said "No, that won't be necessary, we're sorry you've gone through this and we want to get you a pair of unquestionably genuine Wiley goggles, and we're going to have our legal department send this guy notice that he is not to sell or advertise for sale any of our products. We don't let unauthorized dealers carry our products, not if we know about it anyway."

So I sent Wiley the goggles I bought from the creep, along with the information they requested, and they sent me a pair of Wiley's direct from their company/factory. The ones they sent me are essentially fog proof/resistant and the only way they start to fog up is when sweat drips down from my forehead into the goggle, and even then the fog is only about 10-20% of the goggle, a far-cry from the "instant and total fog up" of the goggles I bought from that merchant.

Wiley never definitively ruled on what the goggles were, but they seemed to suspect that they were counterfeit and they did say that they were sending the guy notice that he was not to sell any of their products or any products he was claiming were Wiley.

 

[Graf von Spee]

My rule is: if it sounds too good to be true...

The going rate on the Savage 10FP everywhere else was around $600 dollars so I figured a price of $503 is low enough to be a good deal but not so low to be illegitimate/suspicious. It made sense to me that a business could keep a minimal staff, engage in drop shipping of many items, and keep costs low enough to be able to offer items for sale at about 15% lower than the competition. Around 20-25% below competition and I begin to wonder/worry and anything that is 50% below everybody else should be a major red-flag.

 

[Graf von Spee]

When I explained the situation to my father he was of the view that they made the charge on my debit card and then revoked it a few days later because their price changed and they no longer wanted to sell me one at $503 dollars since their price is now listed as $631 dollars and they are hoping I will get upset and sick of waiting and cancel, at which time they'll probably try to hit me with the restocking fee and thus avoid having to sell me the rifle at the agreed price of $503 dollars while shaking me down for the 15% restocking fee.

Ultimately I'd like to get them to honor the contract and deliver the rifle at the contracted price of $503 dollars. They've already violated FTC policy/rules/regulations in regards to the 30 day rule...

It has occurred to me to just buy the rifle somewhere else and then present them with a bill for the difference. When one party breaches a contract and the other party has to go elsewhere to obtain the item, the breaching party is liable for damages (i.e. the difference/extra cost that the impacted party incurred to obtain the item).

Thus if I go elsewhere and buy the rifle at $650 dollars, then TGSCOM is liable for the damage they caused me...

Which would be $650 (the cost I pay to get it elsewhere) - $503 (the contracted sale price that they agreed to sell it to me at) = $147 dollars (my damage). It would of course be a small-claims issue and legally speaking I would win. It would cost me a few hours of my time but my Fridays are always open and sometimes a few hours of time spent is well worth the effort.

 

[0331]

If you get that Savage and it shoots as good as mine you will be very pleased. I think the Savage FP is the best shooting rifle out of the box for the money.

 

[David Hineline]

Definatly a high maint. customer.

 

[Graf von Spee]

Definatly a high maint. customer.

95% of my transactions take place along these lines...

*Go into reputable local store or order from a website such as AIM or SOG that I've made 20-30 orders from in the last 3-4 years*

*Make payment, receive item*

*Go home with item, item works, enjoy item, keep item and continue using item*



When you have dozens of orders/transactions every few months, you are going to rack up a number of bad transactions. With what is probably an average of 30-40 orders/transactions each year, I manage about 1-3 issues per year and most of those are resolved without anything other than a discussion with the owner/customer service... However, it seems about once per year there is a major issue.

I don't see anything "high maintenance" about expecting people to uphold their end of a deal and provide quality merchandise, and/or handle issues when merchandise is faulty/defective, comes through damaged, etc.


If a product doesn't work as advertised, comes through broken in the box, a customer shouldn't have to go to the attorney general's office to get a refund.

If a month has gone by a store should have honored the rain-check, it shouldn't take involvement of the state attorney general to get a store to honor their own rain-check. When a store issues a rain-check that is essentially their word stating "we will abide by this advertisement and we will get you this price."

It shouldn't require the involvement of authorities to get a merchant to keep his word and do right by a customer. When a merchant refuses to deal honestly, I go to the authorities, and they go to work making the person abide by the law/deal/contract. That's why citizens pay taxes to have an attorney general's office.

 

[Graf von Spee]

I've made somewhere around 15-20 orders from SOG guns in the last few years, buying three Tokarev pistols, 5 Mosgin Nagant rifles, ammunition, magazines, etc, a reasonably large amount of stuff over the last few years...

I recently bought another Yugo Md 57 tokarev and it came through and the slide would not release, even after I degreased it with kerosene, cleaned it, and lubricated it. The slide would not release and the trigger would only work about every fourth pull.

I called them up, spoke with them, they said they would do an exchange, I asked about getting a shipping label, they explained "we stopped doing shipping labels a few years ago, hold on..." they then came back on the line and said, "we see your last return was three years ago, so we're going to get you a shipping label as a courtesy" and they got me the label.

We did the exchange, the next Tokarev came in, and it had a virtually inoperable trigger and a very weak slide release, the weapon was essentially non-functional, so they did another return label and gave me the option of having credit on my account, another pistol, or a full refund. I opted for the refund at that time, but they handled the problem very well.

I'll keep buying from SOG without hesitation.

 

[Graf von Spee]

They emailed me...

The Savage Arms 10FP Law Enforcement Series Rifle you placed on order with us is now considered an inactive product with our company, and we will not be getting it back in stock. Your order will be canceled and your card has not been charged. Sorry for the inconvenience!




I emailed them back-


Hello,

When I ordered the rifle by phone on November 22nd of 2011 I was told that it would almost certainly ship within one week, two weeks at the maximum, and that there was nothing to worry about. I was not contacted on the 22nd of December, at the 30 day mark, as per the FTC rule for mail and phone merchandise orders, and as such your company breached the FTC rule. It was I who initiated contact at the 30 day mark to inquire as to the status of my order. I was assured that it would "almost certainly" ship within one working/business week, it did not.

You better make sure it is inactive because I saw the price raised to $631 dollars on your website and it occurred to me that you simply don't wish to honor our contract and sell me one at $503 when your present price is $631. I am already considering contacting the FTC because you violated the 30 day rule (30 days to ship from time of order) because you did not ship by December 22nd. If I should find the Savage 10FP advertised on your website in the near future I will be contacting the Ohio State Attorney General, the Wisconsin State Attorney General, the Wisconsin State Police, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Federal Trade Commission.

In fact, because you have committed a material breach of contract I am legally entitled to purchase the item elsewhere and you are responsible for the damage I have suffered, specifically the difference in price between what it costs me to obtain the contracted item elsewhere and the price from our contract. Thus if I have to go elsewhere and buy the Savage 10FP at $625 dollars, you owe me the difference from $625-$503, because we had a valid contract, with consideration, for the sale of one Savage 10FP rifle at $503 dollars.

If I were you, I would at the very least attempt to honor the contract and make good on the delivery of the rifle at the agreed upon price.

If you wish to make good on our contract and provide the rifle at the agreed upon price you have until close of business Wednesday (January 4th, 2012) to contact me and make your intentions known and you have until close of business on January 16th 2012 to get the rifle to my FFL. Otherwise the FTC and the State Attorney general can sort out this situation.

Many thanks,

 

[Graf von Spee]

I'm tempted to just take my money elsewhere, file the FTC complaint, contact the attorney general in my state and Wisconsin so a report can be made of a company violating FTC marketing/sales rules and selling things that are not in-stock and that they do not reasonably anticipate having in stock, and then going to somewhere reputable such as Buds Guns to buy the Savage 10FP...

I guess I'll know by close of business Wednesday if TGSCOM wants to honor the contract they have with me or not.

At this rate TGSCOM/Midwest Hunter's Outlet is getting an FTC complaint unless they agree to provide the rifle at the agreed upon price and then provide it in a very timely manner (timely as in what I spelled out in my email to them). The only way they can avoid a mountain of complaints with a half-dozen agencies, is to honor the contract.