(Topic ID: 249870)

Continued playfield issues with JJP and Stern


By f3honda4me

89 days ago



Topic Stats

  • 3,151 posts
  • 400 Pinsiders participating
  • Latest reply 1 day ago by Pachill
  • Topic is favorited by 111 Pinsiders

You

Linked Games

Topic Gallery

There have been 341 images uploaded to this topic. (View topic image gallery).

PB060048 (resized).JPG
IMG_20191113_005534.jpg
IMG_20191113_005516.jpg
IMG_20191113_005501.jpg
A9B9EFA4-D492-4687-BC00-4F9941A21CC6 (resized).png
IMG_0362 (resized).jpeg
20191104_094400 (resized).jpg
IM1 (resized).jpg
download (1) (resized).jpg
IMAG4130 (resized).jpg
Screenshot_20191105-090819 (resized).jpg
7251FC68-3BA0-498E-A517-44138D553047 (resized).png
sling post (resized).JPG
24E28045-2F31-4BA8-B740-F4ABADC2E253 (resized).jpeg
C46C1715-247E-4118-8680-090B31335FC8 (resized).jpeg
9D4E9D32-614F-454E-AFFA-C3E888BC5E92 (resized).jpeg

There are 3151 posts in this topic. You are on page 48 of 64.
#2351 41 days ago
Quoted from hawkmoon77:

I posted this in the JPLE thread, but wanted to let people here know as well that two senior people reached out to me regarding the PF issues I had and they are sending my distributor a new populated PF to swap. Based on the communications I've had with them, I have no doubt that this is an important issue for them to get right. I appreciate everyone's advice here. It helped tremendously.

Jersey Jack or Stern? I'm guessing Stern by the reference to JPLE.

-wonka owner #08742206, play field #105, clear coat case #5107

#2352 41 days ago
Quoted from smalltownguy2:

Jersey Jack or Stern? I'm guessing Stern by the reference to JPLE.
-wonka owner #08742206, play field #105, clear coat case #5107

Yeah, Stern. So many people were involved and at such high levels within the company that I had a high degree of confidence that they were committed to getting everything right.

I had good dealings with JJP in the past. Hopefully they will take care of you as well.

#2354 41 days ago

Great news man, happy for you Hawkmoon

-3
#2355 41 days ago
Quoted from hawkmoon77:

Yeah, Stern. So many people were involved and at such high levels within the company that I had a high degree of confidence that they were committed to getting everything right.
I had good dealings with JJP in the past. Hopefully they will take care of you as well.

Are they providing the labor to remove your play field and install the new one?

22
#2356 41 days ago
Quoted from PtownPin:

Are they providing the labor to remove your play field and install the new one?

Yes. The distributor will be bringing it over, installing it, and sending the old one back for me.

-1
#2357 41 days ago
Quoted from hawkmoon77:

Yes. The distributor will be bringing it over, installing it, and sending the old one back for me.

Good to hear...

-6
#2358 41 days ago
Quoted from hawkmoon77:

Yes. The distributor will be bringing it over, installing it, and sending the old one back for me.

Let us know if and when the new playfield starts pooling and chipping, would ya?

#2359 41 days ago
Quoted from hawkmoon77:

I posted this in the JPLE thread, but wanted to let people here know as well that two senior people reached out to me regarding the PF issues I had and they are sending my distributor a new populated PF to swap. Based on the communications I've had with them, I have no doubt that this is an important issue for them to get right. I appreciate everyone's advice here. It helped tremendously.

Stern and your distributor came through. Major Kudos to them and might I add that your handling of the issues was both professional, mature, and well documented. Here's to your new playfield!!!! Glad this had a good ending.

#2360 41 days ago
Quoted from o-din:

Let us know if and when the new playfield starts pooling and chipping, would ya?

So you're expecting the replacement playfield to be a chip off the old block?

#2361 41 days ago
Quoted from YeOldPinPlayer:

Can you quote the section that applies and maybe provide a link? Could be helpful information for those that don't get a satisfactory resolution.

Here is a basic explanation:

In simplified terms, performance of a contract means doing what you are required to do under the contract. If you fail to do what you are required to do under a contract—if you fail to perform under the contract—then you are in breach of the contract, and breach of contract is generally sufficient grounds for a lawsuit. When it comes to contracts specifically related to the buying and selling of goods, the UCC contains various rules regarding the buyer’s performance. Key among these are rules regarding payment, inspection, rejection, and revocation. Many of these rules rely on the general principle of what is reasonable in the circumstances. In practice, this means that disputes are generally treated on a case-by-case basis.

Buyer's Primary Obligation: Payment for Goods

Under the UCC, the primary obligation of a buyer of goods is to pay for the goods. The general rule is that the buyer must accept and pay for the goods when the seller has delivered—or, to use more technical language, tendered delivery of—the goods. More particularly, the UCC indicates that, by default, the seller’s delivery of the goods and the buyer’s payment for the goods are expected to be concurrent. Unless otherwise agreed, tender of delivery of the goods is a condition of the buyer’s duty to pay, and tender of payment for the goods by the buyer is a condition of the seller’s duty to complete delivery. While it is possible that a seller and buyer may make other contractual arrangements regarding payment, where payment is due upon delivery, the buyer does not have the right to keep or dispose of the goods unless he or she pays for the goods.
As to the form of payment, the UCC allows for payment “by any means or in any manner current in the ordinary course of business,” unless the seller demands payment in cash. Depending on the specific circumstances, “any means” could mean bank checks, credit cards, or other methods of payment.

Buyer's Right to Inspect Goods

The UCC gives a buyer a right to inspect goods prior to accepting or paying for them, and a buyer is not required to pay for goods that he or she does not accept. More specifically, before making payment, the buyer has the right to inspect the goods “at any reasonable place and time and in any reasonable manner.” In cases where the buyer is taking possession of the goods at the seller’s location, this likely would mean an inspection at that location. In cases where the seller ships the goods to the buyer, the buyer has the right under the UCC to perform the inspection after the goods have arrived at their destination. (Be aware that the UCC distinguishes between a buyer paying for goods and a buyer “accepting” goods. Acceptance is discussed below.
The buyer is responsible for any costs associated with inspecting goods. However, if the goods do not conform to the contract, the buyer has the right to recover inspection costs from the seller.
Notwithstanding the general rule allowing the buyer to inspect to goods before making payment, the UCC has a few specific exceptions where the buyer must pay before making any inspection. Perhaps the key exception is where the contract is for goods delivered C.O.D. (cash on delivery) or on similar terms.

Buyer's Right to Reject Goods

General contract law, as opposed to the UCC, commonly allows for a party to fulfill contractual obligations through substantial performance. This means that it may suffice if a party substantially, though not exactly or perfectly, meets the requirements of the contract. For contracts for the sale of goods, however, the UCC requires “perfect tender” by the seller. As mentioned above, tender means, in essence, the delivery of goods to the buyer, and perfect tender means delivering goods that precisely meet the terms of the contract. According to the UCC, if the goods as tendered “fail in any respect to conform to the contract,” the buyer has various options, including rejecting the goods.
If a buyer wants to reject goods because they do not conform to the contract, the rejection must occur before the buyer accepts the goods. This prompts the question as to when acceptance occurs. According to the UCC, acceptance occurs when the buyer:
after a reasonable opportunity to inspect the goods indicates to the seller that the goods are conforming or that he [or she] will take them in spite of any non-conformity
does not reject the goods after a reasonable time for inspection has passed; or
acts in a way that is inconsistent with the seller's ownership of the goods.
A different section of the UCC reinforces the second of these listed scenarios; Section 2-602 states that a rejection must occur within a reasonable time after the delivery of the goods, and, moreover, that the buyer must seasonably (reasonably promptly) notify the seller of the rejection.
What is a reasonable opportunity to inspect, or a reasonable time after delivery of the goods, will vary depending on the specific details of each situation. On a state-by-state basis there may also be case law that would provide further guidance.
Apart from the foregoing rules on rejection, there are additional rules for a buyer who rejects goods. These include requirements that the buyer properly notify the seller of the rejection and that the buyer give the seller an opportunity to cure whatever problem or defect (non-conformity) in the goods led to the rejection.

Revocation of Acceptance by Buyer

Rejection occurs before a buyer accepts the goods, whereas revocation refers to situations where a buyer has already accepted the goods. The UCC gives buyers the right to revoke acceptance of goods only in very limited circumstances. More specifically, a buyer make revoke acceptance if either:
the buyer initially accepted goods that were non-conforming based on a reasonable assumption that the seller would promptly cure the non-conformity (cure is further discussed in the next section); or
the buyer initially accepted the goods without discovering the non-conformity either because of the difficulty of discovery or because of the seller’s assurances.
As with rejection, revocation must occur within a reasonable time after the buyer discovers the grounds for the revocation—and before there is any substantial change in condition of the goods which is not caused by their own defects. Also, as with rejection, revocation is not effective unless and until the buyer notifies the seller of it.

Seller's Right to Cure Defective Goods

A key section of the UCC gives a seller the right to cure goods delivered to a buyer that are defective or non-conforming. In other words, if a seller delivers goods that don’t match the contract, and the buyer rejects those goods, the UCC gives the seller an opportunity to fix the problem. The seller has the right to cure in two specific situations:
where goods were rejected because of non-conformity, but the seller still has time under the contract to provide conforming goods; or
where the seller had reasonable grounds to believe that the non-conforming goods delivered to the buyer would be acceptable to the buyer, with or without a money allowance (discount).
An example of the first of these situations would be a seller who, under a sales contract, has until March 31 to deliver goods to a buyer, and delivers defective goods on March 15, which the buyer rejects. The seller would still have until March 31 to deliver conforming, non-defective goods to the buyer. An example of the second situation might involve a seller delivering “better” goods to a buyer—such as a more expensive, higher-quality model of a device, with more features, which the buyer nonetheless rejects. The seller likely would have the right, within a reasonable time, to provide the model actually ordered by the buyer.
Note: This article is based on the current version of the model Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). However, not all states have adopted all sections of the current model UCC. Moreover, the model UCC specifically leaves it to individual states to determine the precise wording of certain sections. Therefore, you should always check your own state’s commercial code for the most accurate information.

#2362 41 days ago
Quoted from Beaverz:

UCC is not national law, it is up to individual jurisdictions to implement it. Those judicial can also choose not to adopt any origins they don't agree with, and not not choose to use the current standards. The most relevant section is probably § 2-315. Which just states sold items most be for for purpose which all of these games are.

This is not correct either. The UCC has been enacted in all 50 states. Some states have slightly modified some of the provisions and I don’t practice law in all 50 states, but I’ve been practicing law for 25 years and as far as I am presently aware, the provisions that would apply to this situation which are summarized in my prior post are in effect everywhere. The UCC is actually the most universally adopted “uniform“ law for any topic in the entire United States.

#2363 41 days ago
Quoted from littlecammi:

So you're expecting the replacement playfield to be a chip off the old block?

3cq6pa (resized).jpg
17
#2364 41 days ago

It is completely reasonable to expect a pin I buy in 2019 has at least the quality of one made in the 1990’s. These companies making subpar pins these days are an embarrassment to what made in USA used to mean.

#2365 41 days ago
Quoted from GamerRick:

Here is a basic explanation:
In simplified terms, performance of a contract means doing what you are required to do under the contract. If you fail to do what you are required to do under a contract—if you fail to perform under the contract—then you are in breach of the contract, and breach of contract is generally sufficient grounds for a lawsuit. When it comes to contracts specifically related to the buying and selling of goods, the UCC contains various rules regarding the buyer’s performance. Key among these are rules regarding payment, inspection, rejection, and revocation. Many of these rules rely on the general principle of what is reasonable in the circumstances. In practice, this means that disputes are generally treated on a case-by-case basis.
Buyer's Primary Obligation: Payment for Goods
Under the UCC, the primary obligation of a buyer of goods is to pay for the goods. The general rule is that the buyer must accept and pay for the goods when the seller has delivered—or, to use more technical language, tendered delivery of—the goods. More particularly, the UCC indicates that, by default, the seller’s delivery of the goods and the buyer’s payment for the goods are expected to be concurrent. Unless otherwise agreed, tender of delivery of the goods is a condition of the buyer’s duty to pay, and tender of payment for the goods by the buyer is a condition of the seller’s duty to complete delivery. While it is possible that a seller and buyer may make other contractual arrangements regarding payment, where payment is due upon delivery, the buyer does not have the right to keep or dispose of the goods unless he or she pays for the goods.
As to the form of payment, the UCC allows for payment “by any means or in any manner current in the ordinary course of business,” unless the seller demands payment in cash. Depending on the specific circumstances, “any means” could mean bank checks, credit cards, or other methods of payment.
Buyer's Right to Inspect Goods
The UCC gives a buyer a right to inspect goods prior to accepting or paying for them, and a buyer is not required to pay for goods that he or she does not accept. More specifically, before making payment, the buyer has the right to inspect the goods “at any reasonable place and time and in any reasonable manner.” In cases where the buyer is taking possession of the goods at the seller’s location, this likely would mean an inspection at that location. In cases where the seller ships the goods to the buyer, the buyer has the right under the UCC to perform the inspection after the goods have arrived at their destination. (Be aware that the UCC distinguishes between a buyer paying for goods and a buyer “accepting” goods. Acceptance is discussed below.
The buyer is responsible for any costs associated with inspecting goods. However, if the goods do not conform to the contract, the buyer has the right to recover inspection costs from the seller.
Notwithstanding the general rule allowing the buyer to inspect to goods before making payment, the UCC has a few specific exceptions where the buyer must pay before making any inspection. Perhaps the key exception is where the contract is for goods delivered C.O.D. (cash on delivery) or on similar terms.
Buyer's Right to Reject Goods
General contract law, as opposed to the UCC, commonly allows for a party to fulfill contractual obligations through substantial performance. This means that it may suffice if a party substantially, though not exactly or perfectly, meets the requirements of the contract. For contracts for the sale of goods, however, the UCC requires “perfect tender” by the seller. As mentioned above, tender means, in essence, the delivery of goods to the buyer, and perfect tender means delivering goods that precisely meet the terms of the contract. According to the UCC, if the goods as tendered “fail in any respect to conform to the contract,” the buyer has various options, including rejecting the goods.
If a buyer wants to reject goods because they do not conform to the contract, the rejection must occur before the buyer accepts the goods. This prompts the question as to when acceptance occurs. According to the UCC, acceptance occurs when the buyer:
after a reasonable opportunity to inspect the goods indicates to the seller that the goods are conforming or that he [or she] will take them in spite of any non-conformity
does not reject the goods after a reasonable time for inspection has passed; or
acts in a way that is inconsistent with the seller's ownership of the goods.
A different section of the UCC reinforces the second of these listed scenarios; Section 2-602 states that a rejection must occur within a reasonable time after the delivery of the goods, and, moreover, that the buyer must seasonably (reasonably promptly) notify the seller of the rejection.
What is a reasonable opportunity to inspect, or a reasonable time after delivery of the goods, will vary depending on the specific details of each situation. On a state-by-state basis there may also be case law that would provide further guidance.
Apart from the foregoing rules on rejection, there are additional rules for a buyer who rejects goods. These include requirements that the buyer properly notify the seller of the rejection and that the buyer give the seller an opportunity to cure whatever problem or defect (non-conformity) in the goods led to the rejection.
Revocation of Acceptance by Buyer
Rejection occurs before a buyer accepts the goods, whereas revocation refers to situations where a buyer has already accepted the goods. The UCC gives buyers the right to revoke acceptance of goods only in very limited circumstances. More specifically, a buyer make revoke acceptance if either:
the buyer initially accepted goods that were non-conforming based on a reasonable assumption that the seller would promptly cure the non-conformity (cure is further discussed in the next section); or
the buyer initially accepted the goods without discovering the non-conformity either because of the difficulty of discovery or because of the seller’s assurances.
As with rejection, revocation must occur within a reasonable time after the buyer discovers the grounds for the revocation—and before there is any substantial change in condition of the goods which is not caused by their own defects. Also, as with rejection, revocation is not effective unless and until the buyer notifies the seller of it.
Seller's Right to Cure Defective Goods
A key section of the UCC gives a seller the right to cure goods delivered to a buyer that are defective or non-conforming. In other words, if a seller delivers goods that don’t match the contract, and the buyer rejects those goods, the UCC gives the seller an opportunity to fix the problem. The seller has the right to cure in two specific situations:
where goods were rejected because of non-conformity, but the seller still has time under the contract to provide conforming goods; or
where the seller had reasonable grounds to believe that the non-conforming goods delivered to the buyer would be acceptable to the buyer, with or without a money allowance (discount).
An example of the first of these situations would be a seller who, under a sales contract, has until March 31 to deliver goods to a buyer, and delivers defective goods on March 15, which the buyer rejects. The seller would still have until March 31 to deliver conforming, non-defective goods to the buyer. An example of the second situation might involve a seller delivering “better” goods to a buyer—such as a more expensive, higher-quality model of a device, with more features, which the buyer nonetheless rejects. The seller likely would have the right, within a reasonable time, to provide the model actually ordered by the buyer.
Note: This article is based on the current version of the model Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). However, not all states have adopted all sections of the current model UCC. Moreover, the model UCC specifically leaves it to individual states to determine the precise wording of certain sections. Therefore, you should always check your own state’s commercial code for the most accurate information.

Boom.......

In case you didn't know, that was the sound of mic dropping.

#2366 41 days ago
Quoted from Extraballz:

It is completely reasonable to expect a pin I buy in 2019 has at least the quality of one made in the 1990’s. These companies making subpar pins these days are an embarrassment to what made in USA used to mean.

couldn't have said it better!!!

#2367 41 days ago
Quoted from Extraballz:

It is completely reasonable to expect a pin I buy in 2019 has at least the quality of one made in the 1990’s.

Ask people who were buying in the 1990's. Every era has had quality issues from time to time. mrbally and ltg could tell you some stories.

#2368 41 days ago
Quoted from GamerRick:

Revocation of Acceptance by Buyer

Rejection occurs before a buyer accepts the goods, whereas revocation refers to situations where a buyer has already accepted the goods. The UCC gives buyers the right to revoke acceptance of goods only in very limited circumstances. More specifically, a buyer make revoke acceptance if either:
the buyer initially accepted goods that were non-conforming based on a reasonable assumption that the seller would promptly cure the non-conformity (cure is further discussed in the next section); or
the buyer initially accepted the goods without discovering the non-conformity either because of the difficulty of discovery or because of the seller’s assurances.
As with rejection, revocation must occur within a reasonable time after the buyer discovers the grounds for the revocation—and before there is any substantial change in condition of the goods which is not caused by their own defects.

Thanks for the detailed response.
What would you suggest to someone who has 'pooling' or 'blistering' and has sent photos but heard nothing in 30 days? If a manufacturer claimed it fell within their range of acceptable since you could still play pinball what would your response be?

#2369 41 days ago
Quoted from YeOldPinPlayer:

Thanks for the detailed response.
What would you suggest to someone who has 'pooling' or 'blistering' and has sent photos but heard nothing in 30 days? If a manufacturer claimed it fell within their range of acceptable since you could still play pinball what would your response be?

You’re welcome. Here’s what I can advise. I too have two machines with pooling, one with some chipping as well. I’m not happy but I’m not running to file a lawsuit. I am satisfied with Jersey Jack‘s response to my problem and I have yet to raise it with Stern as I just discovered issues with my Black Knight. Rejection or revocation would sufficiently be established by notifying the distributor or the manufacturer as soon as having the time to fully inspect the machine and test it. Reasonably prompt notification that the machine was damaged or defective upon receipt is all that a court would normally require. You would not be required to refuse to accept delivery. The time period taken must be reasonable however to determine the defect. The time the court would find sufficient will depend on how hard the problem was to discover. Some of these issues we are discussing here are not immediately discoverable but still are a product manufacturing defect. Meaning that the defect was present upon delivery. Then once discovering the defect, you must give the seller the opportunity to cure the defect. If they do then there’s no lawsuit. However if they fail to cure the defect you can definitely sue. I would state quite confidently that anyone who had a bubbling playfield upon delivery or within a few plays would be able to successfully win a lawsuit under the UCC. However, you’re not entitled to recover attorneys fees so you would have to pay the attorney to pursue the case, and that could cost as much as the machine. But anyone wanting to sue would have a strong chance of success. A class action suit is also highly likely to be successful, but unfortunately the damage recovery in class actions is never enough to cover all the damages of all the plaintiffs. So the lawyers get paid well, and the plaintiffs get cents on the dollar. So there’s no great solution. Sophisticated businesses know this and so they make decisions and assumptions on the premise that most people will not sue even though they could.

#2370 41 days ago
Quoted from YeOldPinPlayer:

Thanks for the detailed response.
What would you suggest to someone who has 'pooling' or 'blistering' and has sent photos but heard nothing in 30 days? If a manufacturer claimed it fell within their range of acceptable since you could still play pinball what would your response be?

I personally think that pooling is a manufacturers defect from day one and it shouldn’t matter when the buyer notices it. I think the customer should be made whole even if its a year down the road, especially if there is chipping on the playfield where it pooled. This about Stern owning up to their defect and making the customer whole in good faith to keep that customer and not any legal stuff.

#2371 41 days ago
Quoted from YeOldPinPlayer:

Thanks for the detailed response.
What would you suggest to someone who has 'pooling' or 'blistering' and has sent photos but heard nothing in 30 days? If a manufacturer claimed it fell within their range of acceptable since you could still play pinball what would your response be?

Well you’ve made your report timely so you’re good on your end. They have a sufficient time to cure. If they failed to respond in a reasonable period of time then they have waived their right to cure. You would be able to sue at that point if you chose to. For the goods to conform to the contract they must be suitable for the intended purpose - here at a minimum that would be a playfield that does not bubble and chip. That would be per se evidence of a manufacturing defect and all that you would need to win the case.

#2372 41 days ago
Quoted from Who-Dey:

I personally think that pooling is a manufacturers defect from day one and it shouldn’t matter when the buyer notices it. I think the customer should be made whole even if its a year down the road, especially if there is chipping on the playfield where it pooled.

That’s basically what I said Who-Dey.

#2373 41 days ago
Quoted from GamerRick:

I would state quite confidently that anyone who had a bubbling playfield upon delivery or within a few plays would be able to successfully win a lawsuit under the UCC. However, you’re not entitled to recover attorneys fees so you would have to pay the attorney to pursue the case, and that could cost as much as the machine.

What amount of damages one would seek? What lawyer in his right mind would take on such a lawsuit? Or a buyer filing suit and paying any lawyer to take the case on an hourly basis with no chance at recovery of legal fees?

I would think you also have to prove that the defect was "material" and the manufacturer was not in "substantial performance" with delivery of the finished product.

Bottom line, the idea that the legal system would solve this issue to the buyer's satisfaction is crazy! I get the fantasyland ideas and outrage but not gonna happen.

I hope Stern steps up and fixes your issues Who Dey, the real recourse is people "voting with their wallets".

#2374 41 days ago
Quoted from GamerRick:

For the goods to conform to the contract they must be suitable for the intended purpose - here at a minimum that would be a playfield that does not bubble and chip. That would be per se evidence of a manufacturing defect and all that you would need to win the case.

Have to disagree with that assessment. It's certainly "suitable for the intended purpose" and Stern would likely win the "substantial performance" argument.

12
#2375 41 days ago
Quoted from YeOldPinPlayer:

Ask people who were buying in the 1990's. Every era has had quality issues from time to time. mrbally and ltg could tell you some stories.

71971061_10219457275600302_9067373112357552128_n (resized).jpg
#2376 41 days ago
Quoted from iceman44:

Have to disagree with that assessment. It's certainly "suitable for the intended purpose" and Stern would likely win the "substantial performance" argument.

Absolutely not the way the term would be defined in the case. Again, I’m not recommending everybody sue. I was merely answering questions and correcting incorrect statements about warranty. I think there’s zero chance they would win the case. If it’s defective it’s automatically non-conforming. Here the defect goes to the heart of your machine, your playfield. You are also forgetting that if there’s these issues present they are guaranteed to get worse and that is patently obvious at the time these issues arise. No offense, but I trust my legal judgment over yours.

#2377 41 days ago
Quoted from GamerRick:

Absolutely not the way the term would be defined in the case. Again, I’m not recommending everybody sue. I was merely answering questions and correcting incorrect statements about warranty. I think there’s zero chance they would win the case. If it’s defective it’s automatically non-conforming. Here the defect goes to the heart of your machine, your playfield. You are also forgetting that if there’s these issues present they are guaranteed to get worse and that is patently obvious at the time these issues arise. No offense, but I trust my legal judgment over yours.

Well, no offense either, but i trust my legal judgment over yours. Stern would have many defenses it could raise such as the "defect" being "immaterial" and they have "substantially complied" with the bargain. It's not the slam dunk you represent it to be and everyone's pf issue is different in degree of "defect", thus every case is different.

In addition, even though some don't like it and i wouldn't either, curing a "chipping defect" in a PF could be arguably satisfied legally by sending the buyer a little bottle of clear to paste over the chip.

Again, what are the damages? Arguing about it is irrelevant because no one will ever sue Stern over this issue. If you have a totally F ed up chipping PF that prevents you from enjoying the product as intended then that individual would have a case and even then its crazy to think it would go to litigation.

Stern has proven many times before in those instances, such as GB, they have "cured the defect" with replacement of a populated PF if warranted, other cases might not warrant it.

#2378 41 days ago
Quoted from hawkmoon77:

Yes. The distributor will be bringing it over, installing it, and sending the old one back for me.

This is huge news!!!! thanks for sharing...has JJP done this once yet for POTC owners (hoping so)? Truly curious, as I just drop in now and then...might have missed it.

The thread is about Stern AND JJP, correct?

#2379 41 days ago
Quoted from MK6PIN:

This is huge news!!!! thanks for sharing...has JJP done this once yet for POTC owners (hoping so)? Truly curious, as I just drop in now and then...might have missed it.
The thread is about Stern AND JJP, correct?

Awesome news for the Hawk! A just outcome. Way to go Hawk.

#2380 41 days ago
Quoted from iceman44:

Well, no offense either, but i trust my legal judgment over yours. Stern would have many defenses it could raise such as the "defect" being "immaterial" and they have "substantially complied" with the bargain. It's not the slam dunk you represent it to be and everyone's pf issue is different in degree of "defect", thus every case is different.
In addition, even though some don't like it and i wouldn't either, curing a "chipping defect" in a PF could be arguably satisfied legally by sending the buyer a little bottle of clear to paste over the chip.
Again, what are the damages? Arguing about it is irrelevant because no one will ever sue Stern over this issue. If you have a totally F ed up chipping PF that prevents you from enjoying the product as intended then that individual would have a case and even then its crazy to think it would go to litigation.
Stern has proven many times before in those instances, such as GB, they have "cured the defect" with replacement of a populated PF if warranted, other cases might not warrant it.

Obviously your definition of what would be a satisfactory cure is vastly different from many of the upset people in this thread and elsewhere. People on Pinside don’t agree on anything. I’m not surprised in the least that there are statements disagreeing with my opinion. You’re entitled to yours, I stand by mine. Everybody can do what they want. There’s no way you’re going to ever convince me that a bottle of epoxy or putty is going to satisfactorily fix a $10,000 machine, which is not just a functional mechanical device put a piece of art, a major piece of furniture, and it is universally accepted that people want a playfield in good condition. Delivering a playfield that is falling apart upon delivery is not conforming to the contract of purchase - period. This is not rocket science. They would have to fix it. Putting putty on it is not fixing it. I think the reason most people are so upset is because you cannot fix a playfield - it must be replaced period. And if the playfield needs to be replaced, the entire machine has to be disassembled and reassembled which is beyond the capability of any normal person. Good luck convincing a judge or jury the bottle of putty fixes that. The mere fact that the ball still rolls around the machine and hits targets and registers a score isn’t going to cut it. By that definition a car would be fine that had no floorboards as long as it still got you to your destination.

#2381 41 days ago
Quoted from hawkmoon77:

Yes. The distributor will be bringing it over, installing it, and sending the old one back for me.

Perhaps you should share the name of your distributor? Sounds like someone I would do business with in the future.

#2382 41 days ago
Quoted from GamerRick:

There’s no way you’re going to ever convince me that a bottle of epoxy or putty is going to satisfactorily fix a $10,000 machine, which is not just a functional mechanical device put a piece of art, a major piece of furniture, and it is universally accepted that people want a playfield in good condition.

You are mixing up "curing a defect" that is and would be "legally acceptable" with what buyers here are upset about and deem unsatisfactory and will impact their future buying decisions.

I agree with you and many others that Stern, JJP and all manufacturers need to get the PF issues resolved and take care of people like Hawk and Who Dey who have significant issues.

Are you a lawyer? I am. There is no UCC claim here. No breach of "implied warranty of merchantability" or "fitness for a particular purpose", etc.

If anything, i might go after a breach of contract claim under some "promissory estoppel" argument. I relied on your promise to deliver a game to my satisfaction and then to my detriment because i could have purchased Spooky Alice Cooper instead with those funds. Or try to prove some kind of fraud, actual or constructive. All of which is absolutely ridiculous!

Anyhow, here's hoping people can get resolution via the way Hawk did it. The legal theories are impractical and ridiculous.

Now i will go out and finish setting up my JPLE!

#2383 41 days ago
Quoted from o-din:

[quoted image]

My last name is Brock, so yes!

#2384 41 days ago
Quoted from iceman44:

You are mixing up "curing a defect" that is and would be "legally acceptable" with what buyers here are upset about and deem unsatisfactory and will impact their future buying decisions.
I agree with you and many others that Stern, JJP and all manufacturers need to get the PF issues resolved and take care of people like Hawk and Who Dey who have significant issues.
Are you a lawyer? I am. There is no UCC claim here. No breach of "implied warranty of merchantability" or "fitness for a particular purpose", etc.
If anything, i might go after a breach of contract claim under some "promissory estoppel" argument. I relied on your promise to deliver a game to my satisfaction and then to my detriment because i could have purchased Spooky Alice Cooper instead with those funds. Or try to prove some kind of fraud, actual or constructive. All of which is absolutely ridiculous!
Anyhow, here's hoping people can get resolution via the way Hawk did it. The legal theories are impractical and ridiculous.
Now i will go out and finish setting up my JPLE!

No sir, I am not mixing anything at all. Didn’t you read my prior post? I stated I’ve been practicing law for 25 years. I’ve been a trial attorney from day one. I’ve also litigated UCC issues. I definitely know what I’m talking about. What is your area of practice? I come up against lawyers all the time that don’t know what they’re doing so it’s not inconceivable that you could be a great guy but not a good lawyer. No offense again. How you can be a lawyer and not understand that the UCC applies is beyond me. The implied warranty of merchantability only bolsters my argument. That warranty is implied in the sale of all goods regardless of what the written contract states. The implied warranty of merchantability requires that the goods conform to what the buyer expects to receive under the contract. The law is very complex so I can’t boil everything down to a forum post. We are talking here about whether the goods conform to the contract and under the definitions used in the Uniform Commercial Code as well as the caselaw on these issues a playfield that’s chipping and cracking and bubbling does not conform. If you can find a legal definition in the Uniform Commercial Code that backs up your definition of what is conforming, I’ll be happy to continue this conversation - until then thank you for your opinion but I respectfully disagree with just about everything you said.

That is also not the proper definition of promissory estoppel. Promissory estoppel is merely requiring a person making a promise to honor that promise as a contract even if no consideration is received (consideration being the key requirement of any contract for enforceability) as long as the other party reasonably relied on the promise to their detriment.

#2385 41 days ago
Quoted from GamerRick:

No sir, I am not mixing anything at all. Didn’t you read my prior post? I stated I’ve been practicing law for 25 years. I’ve been a trial attorney from day one. I’ve also litigated UCC issues. I definitely know what I’m talking about. What is your area of practice? I come up against lawyers all the time that don’t know what they’re doing so it’s not inconceivable that you could be a great guy but not a good lawyer. No offense again. How you can be a lawyer and not understand that the UCC applies is beyond me. The implied warranty of merchantability only bolsters my argument. That warranty is implied in the sale of all goods regardless of what the written contract states. The implied warranty of merchantability requires that the goods conform to what the buyer expects to receive under the contract. The law is very complex so I can’t boil everything down to a forum post. We are talking here about whether the goods conform to the contract and under the definitions used in the Uniform Commercial Code as well as the caselaw on these issues a playfield that’s chipping and cracking and bubbling does not conform. If you can find a legal definition in the Uniform Commercial Code that backs up your definition of what is conforming, I’ll be happy to continue this conversation - until then thank you for your opinion but I respectfully disagree with just about everything you said.
That is also not the proper definition of promissory estoppel. Promissory estoppel is merely requiring a person making a promise to honor that promise as a contract even if no consideration is received (consideration being the key requirement of any contract for enforceability) as long as the other party reasonably relied on the promise to their detriment.

I've also been an attorney for the last 25 years as well and a CPA for 31 years. So yes my area of specialty is tax and estate planning and "real life".

That said, no offense, but i can't imagine ANY lawyer of any experience, no matter how desperate, would take on ANY case against Stern whether it be UCC, breach of contract or otherwise over these issues, for all of the reasons previously discussed. As for "promissory estoppel", that is exactly what i said it means and know it means.

As to "conformance", i'd love to see you try and argue that the product does not allow someone to use it for the purpose it was intended for in its current state. If the pinball machine comes without a PF then you would have a case!

In my opinion, you are WAY off base and still have never answered the issue of "damages" you would seek. If i were representing Stern it would be game over legally with the bottle of clear remedy. "Chipping" and "pooling" are two different issues.

When i say you are "mixing things up" you are clearly pointing out what you, me and others think is right and what Stern or JJP SHOULD do to remedy the situation from a business standpoint. From a LEGAL standpoint, let's go to court and argue the issue of whether or not the "bottle of clear" is an adequate remedy to "cure the defect". It's laughable.

Seriously, as a 25 year lawyer you clearly understand the practicality or lack thereof of suing Stern over this?

#2386 41 days ago

Welcome to the arena, in what should be a awesome bout between 2 lawyers this is sure to get interesting.
In one corner we have GamerRick, and in the other corner we have iceman44.

ding, ding...ok, the bell has rung now and we will read a awesome show of wits.

And I really hope you guys don't get mad at me and I hope I do not get moderated for something. I don't feel real good myself right now, and I am just trying to have some laughs to help with my pains.

#2387 41 days ago
Quoted from JohnnyPinball007:

Welcome to the arena, in what should be a awesome bout between 2 lawyers this is sure to get interesting.
In one corner we have GamerRick, and in the other corner we have iceman44.
ding, ding...ok, the bell has rung now and we will read a awesome show of wits.

And I really hope you guys don't get mad at me and I hope I do not get moderated for something. I don't feel real good myself right now, and I am just trying to have some laughs to help with my pains.

Sometimes you gotta laugh to keep from crying Johnny!

I just don't see the point of riling people up and getting hopes up with litigation pitchforks when its 100% NEVER gonna happen.

Happy to provide you guys some entertainment! It's a debate and what lawyers do but of course i'm right here.

When lawyers get involved, i think most people would agree, the only ones that win are the lawyers!

#2388 41 days ago

What do you call 2 lawyers arguing in a pinball forum?

16
#2389 41 days ago
Quoted from Wickerman2:

What do you call 2 lawyers arguing in a pinball forum?

A waste of billable hours?

#2390 41 days ago
Quoted from Wickerman2:

What do you call 2 lawyers arguing in a pinball forum?

We could start a POOL and see who gets in the most CHIP shots.

#2391 41 days ago
Quoted from littlecammi:

We could start a POOL and see who gets in the most CHIP shots.

I hope the POST the results!

#2392 41 days ago
Quoted from Wickerman2:

What do you call 2 lawyers arguing in a pinball forum?

Unknown (resized).jpg
#2393 41 days ago
Quoted from JohnnyPinball007:

Welcome to the arena, in what should be a awesome bout between 2 lawyers this is sure to get interesting.
In one corner we have GamerRick, and in the other corner we have iceman44.
ding, ding...ok, the bell has rung now and we will read a awesome show of wits.

And I really hope you guys don't get mad at me and I hope I do not get moderated for something. I don't feel real good myself right now, and I am just trying to have some laughs to help with my pains.

There isn't much going on at the moment. Iceman is up 4 rounds to 0. GamerRick is trying to be a champion of the people but is insane if he thinks there is a case here specifically that would ever be taken by any lawyer (hint: because it can't be won.)

#2394 41 days ago
Quoted from iceman44:

Sometimes you gotta laugh to keep from crying Johnny!
I just don't see the point of riling people up and getting hopes up with litigation pitchforks when its 100% NEVER gonna happen.
Happy to provide you guys some entertainment! It's a debate and what lawyers do but of course i'm right here.
When lawyers get involved, i think most people would agree, the only ones that win are the lawyers!

I rather enjoyed the banter of wit. Hey, in this day and age when you can spill a cup of coffee in your lap and sue you just never know what reality to believe. Lol. Does suck that a hobby meant to bring fun and joy even has post dialog like this.

12
#2395 41 days ago
Quoted from zaphX:

A waste of billable hours?

"A lawyer dies and goes to Heaven. "There must be some mistake," the lawyer argues. "I'm too young to die. I'm only 55." "Fifty-five?" says Saint Peter. "No, according to our calculations, you're 82." "How'd you get that?" the lawyer asks. Answers St. Peter, "We added up your time sheets."

#2396 41 days ago
Quoted from iceman44:

"A lawyer dies and goes to Heaven. "There must be some mistake," the lawyer argues. "I'm too young to die. I'm only 55." "Fifty-five?" says Saint Peter. "No, according to our calculations, you're 82." "How'd you get that?" the lawyer asks. Answers St. Peter, "We added up your time sheets."

Did you just admit that lawyers generally lie about billable hours, to the detriment of their clients. Alrighty then!

#2397 41 days ago
Quoted from Kiwipinhead:

[quoted image]

Hey GARY, why are you not using Kryptonite anymore!!

#2398 41 days ago
Quoted from iceman44:

"A lawyer dies and goes to Heaven. "There must be some mistake," the lawyer argues. "I'm too young to die. I'm only 55." "Fifty-five?" says Saint Peter. "No, according to our calculations, you're 82." "How'd you get that?" the lawyer asks. Answers St. Peter, "We added up your time sheets."

Funny, I like it! I am not used to hearing jokes about lawyers. It’s always fun to here jokes from other professions.

#2399 41 days ago
Quoted from iceman44:

the only ones that win are the lawyers!

I have a awesome lawyer, I consider him a best friend. He has been awesome through the years. Pricey yes, but worth it hell yes.

I know what you are talking about with the only lawyers really win. But in my cases 200.00 to Carl got me back 10k a internet crook on ebay took from me, and 1600.00 to Carl got my Mom back her 80k policy on Dad that State Farm was trying to bring technical crap on her after he passed.

I love my lawyer.

And actually the only people I personally know that hates lawyers are the ones that went through a divorce and one had a better lawyer than the other.

I have been very entertained reading you guys go back and forth. Reminds me of Carl and the stuff he comes up with.

I wish everyone the best, and I hope Stern and JJP makes everyone whole again without any legal stuff required.

#2400 41 days ago
Quoted from Roostking:

Did you just admit that lawyers generally lie about billable hours, to the detriment of their clients. Alrighty then!

You are kidding right? LOL.

Promoted items from the Pinside Marketplace
From: $ 165.00
Playfield - Toys/Add-ons
Pinball Mod Co.
$ 48.00
Cabinet - Other
ModFather Pinball Mods
$ 10.00
Cabinet - Decals
Docquest Pinball Mods
7,400
Machine - For Sale
Bensenville, IL
$ 20.00
Playfield - Decals
Flashinstinct
$ 9,500.00
From: $ 24.95
Playfield - Other
Hookedonpinball.com
$ 26.50
Playfield - Toys/Add-ons
The MOD Couple
$ 107.95
Lighting - Other
Hookedonpinball.com
Trade
Machine - For Trade
West Chicago, IL
5,995
Machine - For Sale
West Chicago, IL
$ 18.25
Playfield - Toys/Add-ons
The MOD Couple
$ 5,799.00
Pinball Machine
Gulf Coast Pinball, LLC
$ 8,999.00
Pinball Machine
Nitro Pinball Shop
$ 279.95
Lighting - Led
Pin Stadium Pinball LEDs
Trade
Machine - For Trade
West Chicago, IL
From: $ 175.00
Gameroom - Decorations
Pinball Photos
$ 15.95
From: $ 44.95
Playfield - Toys/Add-ons
PinBoss Mods
$ 51.45
Playfield - Toys/Add-ons
Lermods
From: $ 5,599.00
Pinball Machine
Great American Pinball
From: $ 175.00
Gameroom - Decorations
Pinball Photos
From: $ 127.05
Cabinet - Sound/Speakers
PinWoofer
$ 7,499.00
Pinball Machine
Little Shop Of Games
There are 3151 posts in this topic. You are on page 48 of 64.

Hey there! Got a moment?

Great to see you're enjoying Pinside! Did you know Pinside is able to run thanks to donations from our visitors? Please donate to Pinside, support the site and get anext to your username to show for it! Donate to Pinside