(Topic ID: 249870)

Continued playfield issues with JJP and Stern

By f3honda4me

57 days ago

Topic Stats

  • 2,669 posts
  • 361 Pinsiders participating
  • Latest reply 1 hour ago by o-din
  • Topic is favorited by 96 Pinsiders


Linked Games

Topic Gallery

There have been 311 images uploaded to this topic. (View topic image gallery).

thumbnail_image1 (resized).jpg
DAA46D17-AE44-4183-BF0E-4F9767AF5FAE (resized).jpeg
49034223-F435-4882-9980-BE445297ACB0 (resized).jpeg
59284194583__8E45E493-CC92-4645-BEF4-B9622AEB4433 (resized).JPG
Screenshot_20191013-110702 (resized).png
pasted_image (resized).png
5188226D-D073-4C10-86EE-CF925433A9C9 (resized).jpeg
20191009_201145 (resized).jpg
20191009_201200 (resized).jpg
pasted_image (resized).png
Unknown (resized).jpg
Unknown (resized).png
9CD37D0F-1A9B-4C22-8FFD-18FA3D9A5C12 (resized).jpeg

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

#1288 36 days ago

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?

#1307 36 days ago
Quoted from underlord:

Well, enjoy that pf swap on your brand new pin. Yikes.

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.

#1311 35 days ago
Quoted from gliebig:

I've replied three times to my ticket with JJP and have had NO response. Zero..nil..nada. It's like I'm talking to myself.

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.

#1385 34 days ago
Quoted from woody76:

still unacceptable. If they do not send populated playfields for swap it is crap move.
are you going to enjoy doing 2 playfield swaps on 2 brand new games that you paid $18,000 for?

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.

#1548 29 days ago

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.

#1731 25 days ago
Quoted from T7:

I just got a new JPLE and it has the no-art circles and a much thinner clear, but still glossy.
So far it looks like this will fix the problem, absolutely no signs of pooling so far.

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!

#1732 25 days ago
Quoted from underlord:

Well Gary doesn’t care about the home collector. We’re just a pita. So there’s that.
Good luck selling marked up nib junk to operators. I’m sure they’ll love breaking even in 5 years with a decimated machine.
Jack is marginally better but this better get sorted out. Who’ll buy the 12.5 CE’s then? Christ on a cracker people...

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.

#1734 25 days ago
Quoted from fishbone:

I'm really glad I found this thread as I was interested in buying Jurassic Park.
Not going to happen unless these issues are resolved.
Sorry for all the guys affected by these late flawed playfields. Here's hoping Stern is going to makes this right for you.

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.

#1737 25 days ago
Quoted from Utesichiban:

If these issues are as widespread on multiple machines as it appears, Stern is looking at possible class action or other lawsuits in the future. These games are too expensive for buyers to lose thousands trying to fix (or lose it on resale) known manufacturing defects.
I just don't understand how Stern never had all these PF issues until 2015ish and now can't seem to fix the problems over several years and machines. Unacceptable.

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.

#1816 23 days ago
Quoted from frolic:

I'm predicting a very tense and awkward Stern talk at Expo where they cling to the narrative that there are very few machines affected, and those affected should talk to their distros. And that is all that will be said.

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.

#1885 22 days ago

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
1 week later
#2289 11 days ago
Quoted from Multiballmaniac1:

I’ve been gone too long from this thread. Paint my basement rec room tomorrow.[quoted image]

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

#2329 10 days ago
Quoted from Beaverz:

No, there is not, and never has been, a warranty on the playfield. They have been willing at times to deal with issues but it's been completely discretionary on their part, at least in the US.

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.

#2361 9 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 9 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.

#2369 9 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.

#2371 9 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 9 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.

#2376 9 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.

#2380 9 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.

#2384 8 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.

#2421 8 days ago
Quoted from Beaverz:

A toddler can swap a new playfield if you can get them to pay attention. It's simply unscrewing and screwing in parts. On a new game the GI isn't stapled to the playfield, parts are not being rebuild or repaired. it's tedious but easy. To say it's beyond any normal person is silly. Sure lots of people are too lazy to do it, but it takes exactly zero special talent to swap a modern playfield.

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.

#2423 8 days 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?

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.

#2446 8 days ago
Quoted from iceman44:

Why don't you lead the charges for everybody here that has that issue with Stern then and see how it turns out?
I've done plenty of pro bono work for my fellow pinsiders, always happy to help!
You said, "the lawsuit was a guaranteed win", now its "high likelihood", getting more realistic but i KNOW you would never tell a prospective client paying you an hourly fee what you just said publicly here, as a 25 yr lawyer.
Let's have you try out a test case and see what happens? Prove it to me
You keep ignoring adequately "curing the defect" under the law, which Stern has done and can easily do, despite not solving the issue adequately in the court of public opinion, PINSIDE
A good lawyer understands both sides of the issue and knows when they have the facts on their side to argue. Legally, it's "highly UNLIKELY" you would win a lawsuit against Stern. And every case is different, you keep making these broad statements that just don't apply to each case. That's why i don't need 25 years experience in commercial litigation on something this ridiculous.
Yet again, its a moot point because neither you nor any other lawyer would take the case Carry on Rick 5 rounds and now its 5-0

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.

#2449 8 days ago
Quoted from iceman44:

It’s all good Rick, def not personal. I’d love to have a drink or two at a show and argue the merits of legal issues and more importantly play some pinball in the future!
There will NEVER be a UCC case brought against Stern for anything I’ve seen that they haven’t corrected, nor any class action, EVER
As you hopefully hang in the pinball hobby for many more years maybe you’ll gather a different perspective on the reality of this hobby

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.

#2452 8 days ago

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.

#2466 8 days ago
Quoted from littlecammi:

GamerRick's been on Pinside for 1 year and has 6 really nice pins, while iceman has been on Pinside 8 years and has 19 great pins.
Based on that I'd have to side with iceman. (Although if Rick adds six NIB pins every year he could even things up pretty quick.)

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

#2475 8 days ago
Quoted from flynnibus:

Don't worry about the sheep.... hearing what you want to hear is more critically valued on pinside than having to face realities. Hence the mob flocking to any prophet preaching what they want to hear.
Your comments have been much appreciated.

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.

#2493 7 days ago
Quoted from Roostking:

I dont understand why so many people are downvoting you lol Ice I can understand, since he is a lawyer, the rest just seem to be on his jock! Thanks for the information!!

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.

#2495 7 days ago
Quoted from iceman44:

call Rick the UCC lawyer
How many claims have been made in the prior 30 years of operation by Stern?
How about Bally/Williams ?

Quoted from Wickerman2:

Missed point again lol

Yes he did. Happens often.

#2496 7 days ago
Quoted from Roostking:

Semper Fi, Im a former Marine, but not a lawyer!!!

Oooohraaah Devil Dog!

1811. Tanker.

#2499 7 days ago
Quoted from iceman44:

Now that right there is some funny shit!

Agreeing with Wickerman doesn't count, a leader of the don't get it club. LOL

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

#2501 7 days ago
Quoted from littlecammi:

I don't use emojis and I never will. I usually trust people can catch the implied humor. Apparently not this time.
Guess you gentlemen haven't read many of my posts (mostly attempts at humor or sarcasm).
Then again, my wife tells me I'm not as funny as I think I am. I would hate to think she's right.

I guess not always huh?

#2518 7 days ago
Quoted from Talon2000:

Few hundred more plays and it just get's worse. Still no word from Stern, phone calls and emails. Still waiting.[quoted image][quoted image]

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.

#2533 7 days ago
Quoted from smalltownguy2:

I was told the same.
-wonka owner #08742206, play field #105, clear coat case #5107

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.

#2534 7 days ago
Quoted from NeilMcRae:

FWIW, JJP have reported to our distributor here in the UK that they have fixed whatever was causing this now.

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

#2535 7 days ago
Quoted from Sako-TRG:

So folks, is the general consensus......a badly pooled PF will inevitably lead to chipping?

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

#2554 7 days ago
Quoted from rrosenhouse:

I think those are more LE's .

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.

#2555 7 days ago
Quoted from DaMoib:

Stern added a QA Director today... used to work at (with?) Caterpillar

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.

#2653 1 day ago

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

Promoted items from the Pinside Marketplace
Machine - Wanted
Roswell, GA

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

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