Jack called me tonight as well. He is sending me a new playfield for both my POTC and Wonka! They will be playfields from a new run. I’m very satisfied with a personal call and a free replacement playfield. I feel that is fair under the circumstances. Great touch to call customers personally. I’m impressed with that. We spoke for a few minutes and he was very genuine. He thanked me for my business and trust in his company as well and wanted to make sure I knew he valued me as a customer.

Is Gary Stern calling anyone?

Well I certainly agree swapping isn’t fun or cheap, but I don’t blame JJ for all of it. It was Micro that screwed up. JJ should have figured it out sooner, but they are making a big step to fix it. If they replaced every machine they would go out of business. I don’t have to swap out POTC yet. I can save it for if the playfield has to be replaced. But no matter what, I absolutely love that machine, my favorite pin ever. So I’m willing to invest some to keep it working great. I think there aren’t any great choices here, but he was serious that they won’t be using bad playfields going forward and there will be new runs without the issue. I am satisfied that they are making a serious effort. I got the clear impression he knew they needed to do something big on this to keep customers happy and coming back.

Well I had already been talking to Frank and Steve on the telephone. Have you called yet? Both Frank and Steve have always been very helpful when I spoke to them. I’ve actually had very few issues with my POTC other than the playfield. They have helped with any issue. Jack even gave me his personal cell phone number and told me to call if I needed anything! That is class any way you slice it. I’m not going to post the number though of course. He was very good to me so I could only judge JJ based on my dealings with them and to me they have always been great. I did report playfield bubbling on both machines within five hours of them getting delivered though just to make sure I documented that there were issues before I flipped a ball.

Well first off, my distributor is replacing my Wonka. It’s beyond repair. I expect that one to be fine. We’ll see. On the POTC, the playfield is fine for probably a while. Maybe I get ten years out of it. The playfield would not be in best shape by then anyway even if pristine now after heavy use of ten years. So instead of having to buy a new playfield, I already have a free one. So now let’s say I pay $1500 to have the playfield swapped and re-populated, it really only cost me $500 more because I already have a free playfield. Then I have a new machine ten years after purchase. Not that bad actually. I get your point of course, but I’m satisfied with this. Obviously there are people who aren’t.

This is the biggest threat pinball has ever faced. If these manufacturers do not fix this problem VERY SOON they will lose so much business the industry will never recover. So I guess it’s all now up to how bad these businesses want to survive. It sucks too because it comes at a time when the innovations in pinball have been so exciting. It just takes the wind right out of you.

I am waiting for a JPLE as well. My distro told me that Stern reworked all of the LE playfields after this issue began to break big time and that all LE production was stopped until those new play fields were available and ready to use. It sounds like you got one of the new play fields. If they did figure it out that’s great as long as they’re now not using such thin clearcoat that it wears off the third time you wax the damn thing. My distro told me he told Gary on a major phone conference recently to just make them like you used to in 2007!

Well if that’s true then Gary would have to be dumber than a post. Most of Stern’s profit margin is earned from the home use only market. How many LEs do you see on location? Do you really think Stern doesn’t know that? I actually believe we are their most important market and they know it too they’re just not sure how to deal with the problem and they’re scared that’s my view, just as Jersey Jack is. This is a nightmare from a manufacturing perspective.

There are actually many threads about modern machines with the polling, chipping issue. They are all over Pinside you can’t miss them at this point. And that’s great the manufactures are truly learning how serious this is from how big of a reaction there has been and continues to be until we all feel safe again to plop $9000 down on an NIB purchase and I have to worry about getting something that’s defective upon receipt and will surely fail eating up our investment.

I can virtually guarantee a class action lawsuit will be coming if they don’t fix this and fairly address the damage machines already out there in people’s hands. You’re talking about millions and millions of dollars worth of pinball machines, lawyers on those kind of cases get 1/3 of the recovery so there will be a lot of money grubbing attorneys wanting to take this at some point. Only problem is those cases only make money for the lawyers. So the lawyers may end up with $10 or $20 million and will end up with a coupon for $100 off any NIB purchase. I get class action notices at least a couple times a year from things and the benefit to me is always so small I don’t even bother sending in the paperwork. But that doesn’t really matter in terms of us getting action, a lawsuit would force action, and that’s really what we want - action. I don’t care about money, I just want my pins to last a long time period.

That won’t work very well if there are 100 unhappy Stern customers all asking the same thing. Denial at that level will backfire. Expo will be interesting - the first big pinball expo since this problem became so widely known and so large in scope and machines affected. Especially with the newest ones coming off the line. Can’t wait to hear reports back. I can’t make this one or I’d be there also.

So the Stern release photographs of Elvira clearly show artwork underneath both slings. I’m curious if those photos were taken before they discovered the problem and made the changes to the JP LE playfiields

B0D9D071-3376-42E6-86DD-10941AF9C318 (resized).png

Looks like you can fit a lot of pins in there! When’s the grand opening, you’re not too far.

That is not correct. There is a warranty under the Uniform Commercial Code for all goods that are not exempt. The goods must conform to the contract. Pinball machines are not exempt. Most people don’t know their rights. This is automatic by operation of law and companies cannot exempt themselves from it.

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.

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.

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.

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.

That’s basically what I said Who-Dey.

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.

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.

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.

No not swapping a populated playfield. Obviously that is not that hard. I was discussing replacing everything from a bare playfield. I thought that was clear. That is what JJ is sending out right now. So you would have to rebuild the entire pin. Not an easy task.

Your experience is in tax and estate planning? So you have zero experience in commercial litigation is that correct? I have 25 years experience in commercial litigation. I don’t do taxes though. And you are criticizing my opinion in areas I practice in and you do not without providing any basis for your position? Not convincing. I never said anything about damages either, what I said was if you sued under the UCC and had properly rejected or revoked acceptance for a chipping or blistering playfield you have an extremely high likelihood of winning the lawsuit and getting your money back or a new pin. I thought I was very clear about that. That’s all I said in addition to plastering the playfield so that it’s smooth again is not repairing a defective $10,000 machine sufficient to conform to the contract. As I said the ball merely rolling around the pin and scoring is not going to be enough to establish the goods conform to the contract. That will be $500 please.

I’m sure your a good man Iceman, and this has never been personal, but the more you talk the less like a lawyer you sound. And for an attorney, you’re not very adept at accurately reading my prior posts. At no time did I ever state that I guaranteed a lawsuit would be successful. I agree no attorney should make grandiose claims like that and if you can go back and read carefully you’ll see that I never did that. What I stated was if the manufacturers don’t address this issue properly I can virtually guarantee at some point a class action lawsuit will be filed. That was just an opinion about the likelihood of a lawsuit and it was based on the fact that there’s always some money grubbing attorney out there looking to file a class action lawsuit, because as has been discussed several times, the attorney gets paid 1/3 of the recovery and so usually makes a good amount of money on this type of case whereas the actual plaintiffs that suffered damages gets cents on the dollar. Perhaps you should take a few minutes and go back and read my comments before you so grandiosely attack them and not even get them correct. In my humble opinion, one does not give an expert opinion on something they’re not an expert on. Maybe you should stick to taxes.

Regardless, I was merely answering a question and correcting two incorrect statements about the law since this seems so important to people. You are the one that insisted I don’t know what I am talking about and keeps arguing about it, albeit without properly supporting your position. And if you are an attorney, you should be well aware that supporting your legal argument with authority is basic lawyering 101. It appears that your opinion is based on your commercial law course you took as a second year law student 27 years ago. Just stating that you think that something being fixed in your personal view will be satisfactory isn’t the criteria that the court would look at.

I’ll definitely have a drink with you if we’re ever at the same event! I’m not going to sue. I’m not recommending suing. Just telling people their rights. It’s all good. But a timid lawyer I am not, so I’ll always defend my legal position unless determining it is wrong. That’s what lawyers do right? I’d be a very lousy one if I wasn’t confident enough to do that.

I also didn’t mean to imply Stern or JJ won’t fix the machines. It seems Stern does respond with populated playfields for serious cases, so I’d first recommend trying to work with your distributor. That’s what I did with my completely defunct Wonka LE. But if you do follow the requirements of the UCC, you would be able to sue if you wanted to if the manufacturer didn’t fix it. And to be technical, your UCC claim would be against your distributor, who is the party you actually contracted with. Then they would have to pursue a claim against the manufacturer to make them whole.

Actually I have three coming next week. This makes my legal opinion more valid? The number of pins I own? Yeah right.

I don’t. Never do. I’m not on here for ego and rarely even mention anything legal. I’m on here because I love pinball. I also find pinball a great release from daily life. It’s all pure fun. But some comments about these issues were just way off and I felt like helping my fellow pinballers. I’m not losing sleep over comments or downvotes. And in my line of work my skin is thicker than an alligator. No worries.

In the age of social media and political divisiveness, it seems to be the thing to do. Doesn’t bother me a bit. I’m also a Marine, so this is just child’s play. And your welcome.

Yes he did. Happens often.

Oooohraaah Devil Dog!

1811. Tanker.

It’s becoming clear why you have 19,000 posts. You keep going like the Energizer bunny.

I guess not always huh?

I think this is just terrible. If this is in your first thirty days I would want a full swap out of the entire pin. That kind of damage right out of the gate is completely unacceptable. Populated playfield at a minimum. I think a blank playfield is fine for a machine you have had for a year or so, but the first month? No way.

As was I. And when I went to install cliffy‘s and removed a post on my POTC, it pulled a chip right off the playfield. So I am afraid to remove anything from that play field at all.

I’ll believe it when I see Willy Wonka CE’s going out and their owners reporting everything is fine here on Pinside.

Sure looks that way. Caveat I’m no engineer.

JJ said they wouldn’t make any CEs until they figured out what was wrong. They didn’t want any CEs going out with problems it seems. I took that as a good sign they are really trying to fix it. So once we see those getting delivered that’s a good sign.

If that’s not an admission that they’ve had serious problems recently I don’t know what it is. I think it’s a great sign now. Makes sense they realized how serious this was as it’s pretty obvious to all of us.

I know you are but what am I? Seems like that is coming next from someone...

I’m thrilled that some of you with bad Stern playfields are getting populated playfields or true offers to fix from Stern. Impressed.

Ok so I tested the hair dryer method on one sling post on my Wonka and it worked pretty well actually. You could see a line where the clear coat had bunched up but it went smooth again. Big improvement. This gives me hope all my bunched posts on my POTC can be saved before they chip. So far I have one chip on the playfield I can’t hide. I’m thinking of using the hair dryer and some neoprene washers. Once the bunched up clearcoat is smoothed much less likely to chip. I am very curious how many other people have tried that method and how successful it has been. Please post your results.