(Topic ID: 249870)

Continued playfield issues with JJP and Stern

By f3honda4me

4 years ago


Topic Heartbeat

Topic Stats

  • 9,207 posts
  • 704 Pinsiders participating
  • Latest reply 41 days ago by PinMonk
  • Topic is favorited by 177 Pinsiders
  • Topic is sticky in its sub-forum

You

Linked Games

Topic Gallery

View topic image gallery

B47B97EA-8C60-4AB2-82E1-941265D53DCF (resized).jpeg
E51185C3-D30B-46BA-ABE3-0D2C1472D3FF (resized).jpeg
AC060B74-B84E-4C3C-9A87-454A9BFB2FC5 (resized).jpeg
Pinside_forum_7592500_0 (resized).jpg
Pinside_forum_7592500_2 (resized).jpg
Pinside_forum_7592500_1 (resized).jpg
IMG_20221008_211349 (resized).jpg
Capture2 (resized).PNG
IMG20221008031914 (resized).jpg
IMG20221008032533 (resized).jpg
IMG20221008033119 (resized).jpg
IMG20221008034651 (resized).jpg
20220919_071252 (resized).jpg
IMG_20220820_032754 (resized).jpg
IMG_20220820_025439 (resized).jpg
20210920_172949 (resized).jpg

You're currently viewing posts by Pinsider V4Vendetta.
Click here to go back to viewing the entire thread.

#1997 4 years ago
Quoted from Chambahz:

I'd love to know if ANYONE else got that sense from my post. It was not what I had intended, or meant to infer.

Yea that's how I read it. That's the only way I can read it if you've read all the comments you been making before. I don't understand how you can keep defending this shit and can't comprehend that when people pay $6-10 grand of their hard working money, they expect a item of assured quality. I mean really is it that hard to see why people are so upset? And here you are, haven't even bought one of these POS playfield games and acting like a captain savoStern. GTFO.

1 week later
13
#2228 4 years ago

I bought my first NIB 3years ago, Met Prem and when I received it, I lifted the playfield and I saw a giant 2 gouges about 5 inches long right next each other. Some dumbass installed the bracket little to the right and it must have gouged it when they tried to move the playfield. I'm certain this is how i got my cabinet looking like wolverine went to town because there was a extra drilled hole next to where the bracket was screwed in. And my sparky had a giant chip top of his cap also.

So I called my distributor and sent the pictures and he said I'll be getting a new sparky and just wait for the word on the cabinet. It's been 3 fucking years and I haven't received jack from Stern. I sold it a year ago and took a giant loss on it due to the wolverine gouges. Haven't fucked with any stern since and never going to and if I do, it will be used. The price they are charging are beyond retarded for what they put in the game to start with but if you are paying $6-15g for a item, it should come damn near perfect.

#2365 4 years 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 4 years 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!!!

#2407 4 years ago
Quoted from iceman44:

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?

so are you a lawyer or accountant??

3 weeks later
#2767 4 years ago
Quoted from JodyG:

Buddy got a new JP...2 bad coil stops and an insert sunk in about 1/16", which effects gameplay. Hopefully Stern takes care of his PF for him.[quoted image]

how the fuck does that even get passed the QC? zero quality control for item that cost thousands, fucking joke.

1 month later
#3279 4 years ago
Quoted from TomGWI:

As some of you know when I got my Jurassic Park from Stern the playfield had pooling. This is what it looks like now in the home environment.[quoted image][quoted image][quoted image]

and what is stern's response to your problem??

1 week later
#3506 4 years ago

If shutting down stern's NIB purchase is what it takes for them to fucking realize that customer is always king and if they want to charge us top dollars then they better realize quality matters above all else than so be it.

And if they go out of business due to stern boycott, then that's on them, not us, the consumers that's putting food on their table. I'm not going to sit on the sideline and keep quiet for the fear of biggest pinball manufacturer to go out of business.

Trust me, there will be another stern when they fold, just like how stern got to the top when bally/williams folded.

-2
#3513 4 years ago
Quoted from snaroff:

Sure, but if you could "wave a wand" and stop all Stern NIB purchases, you'd be hurting the hobby you love (and it's not like there are any other companies to truly fill the void).
I trust you are right, and I just was fortunate to "get a good one". I've gotten bad ones over the past 20 years...trust me. Stern did a populated PF replacement on my AC/DC years ago (when they had the "cloudy insert" problem with the lower PF).
Since Stern sales occur almost exclusively through distributors, it's odd/disturbing that the distributors don't have more impact on Stern. At the end of the day, THEY are the ones that CURRENTLY have more leverage over Stern.

I was referring to his post, sherlock. If you read the last page, that should've been easy to piece together. So maybe before you write an essay, read and catch up. And no shit, stern got to the top cuz they were the only game in town. You couldn't put that together after reading my post??? Geez

Quoted from jfh:

Umm, what?
The closest thing we have seen close to a Stern NIB boycott was this summer when estimates were about a $500k slowdown. It got Stern’s attention and we saw the no art areas/thinner clear playfields in response but that’s a band-aid not a fix. But the worst appears to be over and buyers seem to be picking up again. If last summer was the best the market can do, Stern will be just fine and not have to do anything more.
Stern isn’t in danger of folding over this because people keep moaning about QC and buying anyway. And if Stern does go out of business, there won’t be “another Stern”. Others may benefit but none will scale that large. Stern got to the top (such as it was) when WMS exited the business because they were the only game in town and was barely able to hang on long enough to survive.
Stern’s business model locks in distributors on new games before they have any idea what issues there might be. Stern/distributors then grab LE buyers from the theme fan pool with empty promises that past problems are behind us before anyone can see or play the game in person. I don’t remember the last time an LE hasn’t pretty much sold out in 3-4 weeks save for a flipper or two.
Stern has no real incentive to fix the playfield quality issues yet because the market isn’t unified enough in forcing change.

3 weeks later
#4285 4 years ago

What I find to be funny is that none of you guys have problem with how Goertz keeps talking about his CE customer treatment?
So you are pissed that you got treated same as a standard or LE buyer cuz you bought a fucking CE model?? So LE buyer should get prefered treatment over standard buyers?? Just cuz you bought a machine that cost little more money you think that puts you on some kind of damn pedestool? None of you have a problem with that? what a fucking joke.

#4287 4 years ago
Quoted from Rager170:

He keeps talking like that because apparently he was told that JJP treats CE customers with priority.

he was told that because he first asked if ce buyers get prefered treatment so that mentality was there to begin with.

Promoted items from the Pinside Marketplace
$ 29.25
Playfield - Toys/Add-ons
The MOD Couple
Toys/Add-ons

You're currently viewing posts by Pinsider V4Vendetta.
Click here to go back to viewing the entire thread.

Reply

Wanna join the discussion? Please sign in to reply to this topic.

Hey there! Welcome to Pinside!

Donate to Pinside

Great to see you're enjoying Pinside! Did you know Pinside is able to run without any 3rd-party banners or ads, thanks to the support from our visitors? Please consider a donation to Pinside and get anext to your username to show for it! Or better yet, subscribe to Pinside+!


This page was printed from https://pinside.com/pinball/forum/topic/continued-playfield-issues-with-jjp-and-stern?tu=V4Vendetta and we tried optimising it for printing. Some page elements may have been deliberately hidden.

Scan the QR code on the left to jump to the URL this document was printed from.