**Not my words but translated for everyone via Google and re-posted. I haven't read it yet.

""Can you keep your customer's goods until he pays?
September 29, 2015
Every entrepreneur has to deal with default. That's frustrating: you've delivered your services or have already done work, the customer does not pay at all. Sometimes, however, you still own property of the customer for any reason. Logically, you immediately think, "He will not get back until he has paid."
The question in this article is therefore: Can you keep your customer's goods until the customer has paid? Can the customer take the view that he has a right of ownership and that, on the basis of that, he has to get back his goods?
Suspension
This article is especially important for entrepreneurs who have 'goods' from their customers. Think of the bicycle maker who has a customer's bike in his workplace. Think of the dry cleaner that still has clothes from a customer. Therefore, it does not include goods that have to be delivered to the customer, even though this section is subject to suspension.
Once there is a breach of obligations by the customer, you can choose as an entrepreneur to suspend your obligations. You will only get your obligations as soon as the customer has done so. This may also be if you have good reason to believe that the customer will not fulfill his obligations (but there is no shortcoming yet).
It is important that you as an entrepreneur realize that there are some exceptions to this possibility of suspension. If you doubt the applicability of these rules, it is advisable to consult a lawyer.
Retention
What about the customer who does not pay, but relying on his ownership? He wants to get his bike or his pants back. Can he rely on property rights?
The answer is (of course) negligent. With the application of the so-called retention right, you can also make an appeal to property rights as an entrepreneur. In short: first pay, then only issue of the case you have to return.
If you have to make costs to keep the case (for example, you have to rent a garage box or you have to do maintenance work to keep the case in good condition) then you can expect that these costs will be paid before you get back Passes.
In addition, you must pay attention to the retention right on time: If you return the goods, then you will still be entitled to your interest rate right then you will be late. The right has been terminated at the time of refund, even if the customer has not yet paid.
Can you keep the goods if the customer refuses to pay?
If the customer does not seem willing to pay the bill even after a few orders, you can not decide to keep or sell the goods. You will have to walk the legally correct road.
If no action is taken, this will mean a corridor to court. There will probably be your best choice to claim compliance with the agreement (ie payment of the agreed price). Only after that can it be a sale of the retarded goods.
In short
Does your customer not pay? Then keep the things you have left of him until he has paid. Is not he still paying? Then you have to go to court.
Do you have a problem that you do not get? Let us know then we will see what we can do for you.
Suppose that customer will not pay what now?
Suppose that customer will not pay what now?
December 27, 2016
In "Company Law"
Customer does not pay: what about collection fees?
Customer does not pay: what about collection fees?
April 5, 2016
In "Company Law"
Request bankruptcy to collect invoice?
Request bankruptcy to collect invoice?
April 11, 2017
In "Beslag"
Need legal assistance?
CONTACT
Author
Mr. B.G.N. (Bart) Gubbels - Lawyer
Business law, labor law, contract law
B.g.n.gubbels @
Time to contact the lawyers !!
(Google translate the main text)
Google Translate for Business:Translator ToolkitWebsite Translator

Interessant. Maar hoe zit het als je als klant (DP) een product besteld bij een fabrikant (ARA), een prijs overeenkomt en de fabrikant ineens meer geld wil?

Pretty good translation
Couple things are lost in translation but main underline is
There to follow legal action.

Or get stuck in Limbo for a long time which 3 years is long enough
Put on the big boy pants and go get sume.

This is USA for peaksake!

USA, USA, USA ( chanting)

I'm not certain, but this seems naughty to me. - Is there a Dutch Moderator in the house?

Screenshot_2017-06-08-20-49-33 (resized).png

Only lawyer can give you advise on that question and possible actions through the court.
I'm no lawyer but This thread needs one NOW !!

He's just bringing up a old subject
About price changing from manufacturer

I don't know about you Kim, but I still find the Gary Robot Translator 2000 more compelling.

Brad

gary_robot_2000.png

"Interesting. But what about if you buy a product from a manufacturer (ARA), a price, and the manufacturer suddenly wants more money?"

Let's say a flower grower sells red roses for Valentine 6 months ahead. Price gets locked in.
Then during the 6 months process
He finds out that it cost more to produce. Guess what a price agreement is a price agreement
If it's in writing that's all there is.

Just suck up the loss and better do it right next time.
You don't need lawyer for that
( unless there is a clause in their contract that allows increases with certain percentages )

Carguement/truckument:
In the vehicle world, components are sold under long-term agreements with fixed pricing. Except most agreements can be broken with "Steel surcharges" or surcharges for other commodity metals/fibers/resins.

Unigroove - just so we all know we are the same footing. Would you mind sharing what you have paid thus far for your TBL preorder that you have not received yet?

paid in full, ordered right after Expo where the game was shown (2014?)

So, paid in full at 8500 USD, correct?

Yes, except I paid in Euro at the current exchange rate at the time.

Great, just checking. Thank you. We are at least in the same financial boat I guess.

New subject, in regards to this comment, the manufacturer I purchsed my game from was DP. What one of their subs did is not relevant to me, even though DP has made it my problem at this point.

Bad management of the process by DP perhaps, but their fault, not mine.

So wait, you don't actually OWN the game? Why is it in your lineup then? Also, is that you selling a "spot" for $8,500? That's just as fraudulent as JPop, DP and Skit B themselves.

I get what your saying and you are not being illogical certainly.

I think what the paid in full achievers would like is some sort of accounting. The feel I'm getting is there is an undertone that DP is simply out of money...like totally out of money. If so, it doesn't matter what deal is cut, DP won't be able to build any more games as it won't have money for parts.

Many seem to feel that DP is using ARA as a smoke screen. Sure, ARA has some hostage games (in an unknown number) but even if those games get released is there money left for more parts and assembly? If the answer to that question from DP is simply "nope, we already know we do not have the cash on hand to manufacture the balance of the ordered games under the old contract" then people want to move on to being paid back whatever they can.

If it is a payback but less than all of what was paid (which it would have to be if they can't pay to build the games) then people have to make their own decisions on how to go about collecting what they can however they can.

Are the DP guys drawing a salary out of the pre-owners money still? Paying for business expenses out of the pre-owners money? Paying for personal expenses? How much is left and what is the monthly cash burn and what is the projected cash burn in the future if DP is going to "lawyer up"? Why are the achievers paying for DP to "lawyer up" out of their preorder money (if that is the case) instead of being repaid whatever is left right now (even if substantially less than what was paid initially)?

You don't get it. Achievers do not have any relationship with ARA. They sent their money to DP with the promise that DP would deliver a game in return. DP has failed to do that, and has blamed ARA, who in turn has blamed DP, so who are the customers to believe? Fact is they shouldn't have to believe either. DP owes them a game or refund, plain and simple. The buck stops with DP, and when DP basically says they're doing nothing, then folks like Greg will do whatever it takes to shake a refund out of the tree, even it it means going to the licensee and pulling some strings.

Again, ARA owes the Achievers nothing. This is 100% DP's mess to fix. They should be selling everything they own to make this right, or they should declare bankruptcy and allow the Achievers to regain at least some of their money back when assets are sold. They should NOT string people along with bullshit statements, which is what they've been doing for the past few months. I am quite disappointed you are trying to slough off responsibility to a party that no Achiever has anything to do with. If DP thinks they're so right, they need to take ARA to court as soon as possible and fix the situation THEY created with THEIR contractor.

I understand what you're saying. However, as Achievers according to you only have a relation with DP, then DP should just inform them about the progress of the production. No need to get into detail on what is going on behind the scenes. A simple "We had a problem with our contract manufacturer and are now moving our production to a new manufacturer. This will cause a delay of currently unknown length to the delivery of your game, but we're doing everything we can to ship you your game as soon as possible." would then be enough. Right?

Not ok with this group!

Only if they added one more sentence: "If you are unhappy with this delay, please contact xxx@dutchpinball for a refund."

People have been waiting two and a half years for their games. Asking them to wait another "unknown length" is just wrong.

I bet RareHero contacts Universal tomorrow. I would if I were him.

Sorry Jonathan, but I respectfully disagree. NOT right.

I've been in for nearly 3 years (since July 2014) on a game that was promised at the time to be delivered in early 2015. It has been 8 MONTHS now since DP announced that they were shipping the next container of 21 games (up through game #51). This 2nd shipment was originally supposed to have been a 42-game container which would have included mine (#59). Unfortunately, this turned out to be the last container shipment.

Since then ... a deliberate lie from DP about bad boards needing to be switched out, followed by practically no info for months until admitting earlier this year that they've had an ongoing issue with ARA, and then a series of disappointing show and newsletter updates that have produced very little info, no seemingly feasible solution, no time frame for achieving one, and a whole lot of unanswered questions from those who have invested in DP and TBL.

I think that I have been very patient with DP on the whole, but after this long, simple assurances from them that they are doing their best and to trust them simply no longer cuts it. Those of us who have paid for games deserve much more than lip service!

Sometimes you can't give out more details, this may go to trial.
Everything, everything points to ARA. So DP was wrong to go with what seemed to be a good CM, they already said that. Now, DP is untangling away from ARA - and also trying to make it work with ARA if they will be reasonable. Why both? In the best interest of seeing the project to completion in the shortest amount of time.
Folks who don't have a penny into DP are angry and posting false assumptions here - really don't need that kind of "help".
DP is holding way more cards- they just can't show them. If they were upside down with no way forward why not sign that horrible deal? That should tell you something.

Pride. The tone of their communications make it clear that they care more about themselves than their customers.

For those who keep defending DP's "policies," I would like to remind you that we have federal and state protection laws here in the United States. One such federal law is known as the MAIL, INTERNET, OR TELEPHONE ORDER MERCHANDISE RULE.

This FTC (Federal Trade Commission) rule, also referred to as the "30-day rule," requires merchants who are shipping a product to a buyer do so within a reasonable period of time. If the merchant cannot ship within 30 days (or within the period of time stated), the customer's consent must be sought to allow for the delay. If no consent is obtained or if the customer does not consent to the delay, the merchant is required to refund the customer's money in a prompt manner for the unshipped merchandise.

The "clock" on the merchant's obligation to ship or take other action under this Rule begins as soon as they receive a "properly completed" order. An order is properly completed when a merchant receives the correct full or partial (in whatever form they accept) payment, accompanied by all the information they need to fill the order.

Merchants who violate this Rule can be sued by the FTC for injunctive relief, monetary civil penalties of up to $40,654 per violation (any time during the five years preceding the filing of the complaint), and consumer redress (any time during the three years preceding the filing of the complaint).

The big unanswered question is whether DP has any remaining money. A preponderance of circumstantial evidence points to no, it is long gone. For DP to have credibility that they are negotiating in good faith and to prove that they aren't totally F&CKED and jerking everyone around with the weekly NSNL's, DP should demonstrate proof of a healthy cash balance lying around the bank to pay off - delivered machines, parts vendors and setting up new factory. Until they do that, most will continue believing DP is bankrupt and living in a fantasy world.

so what the hell happens with the completed games packed in boxes at ARA? What happens to all the parts sitting at ARA? All those go to the landfill? This new vendor starts from scratch and has to tool up for every unique part? Reproduction for all parts has to start over at zero? Given the circumstances, it seems impossible that ARA will turn over the large inventory of parts on hand much less the games in box...

so 4 weeks for the new guy to work up his quote, another 4 weeks of negotiation - assuming that goes well, then what...8 months plus for ramping up, procuring off-the-shelf parts, tooling up to fabricate custom parts, then another several months of production to actually build games, test games, etc? Best case scenario its another 18 months before a game ships...and that's assuming there is money somewhere to actually make any of this happen.

Going the route of a new CM seems like a terrible idea - not to mention a very costly one...call me crazy but this sounds like a DP bluff to push ARA in negotiations....none of this makes any sense...starting over is going to cost a fortune no matter how good of a quote they get from the new manufacturer.

You just can't make this stuff up. It has got to keystone cops level, FFS.

Why would you hear from them you simpletons. They have the high ground. They gave you a take it or leave it offer. DP can't be that niave or think we are.
Translation: after researching everything legally, we realize we have no leg to stand on and we refuse to accept their 51% terms so we are going to start all over and completely reinvent the wheel with a new guy. It will be different, we promise.

What happens with the supposed proprietary parts designed in house by ara. They will have to be made again somewhere differently? Is there intellectual property right on the ara parts? If so, then the new guy has to design similiar but different parts performing the same task. What about parts compatibility between the games shipped and the ones made by the new guy. What a cluster F!

Why bother with contracts or gasp, CONTRACT manufacturing. Let's just wing it. I mean, contracts are for when there is a minsundersranding, not when times are good.

I'm wondering the same damn thing. You don't just walk away from a written contract, especially when you're not at-fault. Perhaps they are using the new manufacturing quote as a bargaining tool with ARA to say "we can get this game built at a lower cost somewhere else."

We are probably looking at another year at the very least.

ARA is a electronics assembly contractor. Outside PCB production, most other things would be bought from outside vendors... vendors who are already tooled to make those TBL parts. The new contractor would be going out to those vendors and be quoting their costs, etc. Yes there'd be startup time as parts are procured and unlike before, there would not have been a schedule to ensure on time delivery to an ongoing game built schedule.. so there will be lag at the front. But they don't have to tool, fab, etc. The hangup is what must be recreated if DP doesn't have design/possession of it... and of course the learning curve for effective pinball assembly and testing. That would be the big time sink.

I'd wager if they didn't have to redesign the electronics from scratch, they'd probably target something like 4-5 months out after having a deal to start test builds. If they will need something like 3 months for the long lead time parts... that same 3 months would be used to work on the engineering, QA designs, and process/task documentation. Figure another 1-2m of early parts staging, build out, and process shakedown.

Remember, the contractor is not a single task startup... they can't just set stuff up and sit idle waiting on a single customer. They have warehouse space, the factory floor space, etc that is lost opportunity if its not working towards billable product ships. They will move fast to setup their assembly and test and start building once the parts and process procurement is ready. And while sourcing parts will have lead times, that time is not locked to just 'waiting'.

The real wildcard is how much does DP have in terms of engineering and the logistics side of their game design vs what must be recreated

The New Guys, if a deal is made, would probably just offer ARA a buyout of all the parts and machines....right?

This is a horrible idea and I don't have any idea what good could possible come of it. The licensees make so little on pinball that I'm concerned they'll just say the heck with it if it becomes a nuisance.

As someone pointed out, the game was ordered from DP, not universal and not ARA. For better or worse you have to deal with DP. The fact the ARA reached out to DP's customers is one of the strongest cards in DP's hand.

It's not realistic to think the FTC will be interested and able to sue DP successfully. Nor is it beneficial. You're likely to get far more selling your spot to speculators than you would from any FTC action.

Agree, all of us will have to band together and pay him off now to stop from crashing the whole project. Think about it first.

Does anyone else think this is just another stalling tactic? They admitted they had no money. They said before if they went to a new CM that they would need to build BOP 3.0 first to raise capitol to make TBL. If they had money, Why no refunds? This is another "board issue" stalling tactic to shut everyone up for a month or more. NSNL No Shit New Lies!

They cannot possibly just hang around. They've been doing that for months already. If ARA really are a dead end, they can't continue waiting and hoping, or waiting for legal action to conclude, which may not be in their favour anyway. When were the last machines shipped? September? They have to do something.

One would have to assume that a new CM deal would involve equity. If DP were swimming in cash and able to proceed whilst machines, parts and possibly cash were in limbo at ARA, it makes logical sense that they'd have moved on long ago.

Also, as appeared clear last week, they're way too emotionally invested to deal with ARA and Nivoge. Far better that the new CM tries to negotiate with them about parts and machines, if they're not just going to file legal action.

This appears to be the right course.

Whether they sign a deal with this other CM, and whether the partnership has a realistic chance of success, at this stage, is another matter entirely.

Perhaps this is a tactic to flush ARA out on there minds?

Thanks for the input Perry Mason, but I never stated I would use the FTC to sue DP.
It was directed towards those who stated DP's "no refund" policy has legal merit.

Trust me, I have several other avenues I can pursue here in the States. I'm more than willing to prove I can get my money back if I choose to get proactive about it. Hint: DP isn't the only party I can pursue.

But thanks for your 2 cents. I'm glad you're here.

Page 105
My TBL no 105

If the policy is sound or not... if they are outside the reach of our laws, then citing US civil remedies really has no merit. You are paying to have a game imported from overseas... there is no US entity really involved here of value. Unless you are one of the unlucky cointaker customers. Beyond that, its down to any protection systems built into your payment vehicle. Most of which, people have long surpassed.

You'd have much better luck squeezing them from their side of the pond.. where generally consumer protection laws are actually much stronger. The EU consumer protection directive says you have the right to withdrawal at least 14 days after RECEIVING the goods - http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32011L0083&rid=1 But they've also established limits of 12months on this (presuming that there is usual communication between the buyer and seller). The consumer protection group for Netherlands is probably a contact some might be interested in pursuing ... https://www.eccnederland.nl/en

only way in my eyes that TBL can be rescued if a existing manufacturer takes this on,
Quick assembly at least.
Who will it be:
Stern - they know shit out fast
JJP - good but at least a year
Spooky - good but at least a year
Heighway - investing more there
American Pinball - ???

Any none pinball company should not take it on , it would not go well

Poll anyone ?

From DP update today:
We understand that a weekly update is not enough. We therefore have planned a webinar on Monday June 19th. We (Barry and Jaap) will give you an update about the production of TBL and also do a Q & A session. We probably will start at 6PM CET/Amsterdam time (this is 12AM EST and 9AM PDT). Next week you will receive more details about this webinar.
That’s all for now. Thank you for your great, continues support and till next time!
Kind regards,
Barry & Jaap

This is a good step in the right direction - at least as far as communicating more effectively. I look forward to hearing what DP has to say, AND more importantly, the opportunity for TBL buyers to ask them questions. Hopefully, we'll get some better answers than in the past.

Or they get a bailout investment like Heighway did. Problem is, DP appears resistant to giving up control, and it's unlikely anyone would make the necessary investment without gaining control, so that avenue is a dead end...

Notice that when Andrew ran out of money, he bowed out and allowed the company to carry on without him. DP could do the same, writing in the transfer contract that all outstanding TBL obligations must be fulfilled by the incoming party, but that has not happened. Why... ? They do not want to relinquish control, or the financials are so screwed up that it is impossible to fulfill their obligations?