I ordered a piece of machinery "in stock for next day delivery", my
credit card was charged and I was emailed 5 days later that my item is
expected to ship in about 3 months (a date was given). I mainly share
this because CPO is a major 3rd party seller at Amazon.com.
I was told, they "have trouble keeping their web site up-to-date". This
is evidently the truth because after a week, the item is still listed as
in stock at Amazon and on their site. I ordered a digital keyboard on
line once and had to maintain the same sort of patience.
In any event, be cautious who you order from if you are in a hurry.
I'm saving a few bucks, and the wait is not a meaningful inconvenience
in my situation--but it could have been.
Bill
On 11/10/2010 7:27 PM, Bill wrote:
> I ordered a piece of machinery "in stock for next day delivery", my
> credit card was charged and I was emailed 5 days later that my item is
> expected to ship in about 3 months (a date was given). I mainly share
> this because CPO is a major 3rd party seller at Amazon.com.
>
> I was told, they "have trouble keeping their web site up-to-date". This
> is evidently the truth because after a week, the item is still listed as
> in stock at Amazon and on their site. I ordered a digital keyboard on
> line once and had to maintain the same sort of patience.
>
> In any event, be cautious who you order from if you are in a hurry.
> I'm saving a few bucks, and the wait is not a meaningful inconvenience
> in my situation--but it could have been.
CPO did the _exact_ same thing to me when I ordered a DeWalt right angle
guide that fits both their plunge saw's guide rails and the Festool
guide rails.
An "in-stock" item on their website, put on backorder and my card
charged in the interim.
Raised hell with both CPO (I refused to cancel the order and let them
off the hook) and my credit card company and ended up getting the part
much sooner than I would have according to their original email ...
coincidental? I think not.
This is an apparent "business practice" that they indulge in when it is
convenient to them and I personally will not allow them to indulge by
tying up my $$/credit, period.
Don't take this lying down, Bill ... you can most likely both get the
good price, and not have your card charged prior to shipment if you
firmly refuse to allow them to get away with it. Your CC company needs
to get involved for starters. You may even get the item sooner.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)
"Bill" wrote:
>I ordered a piece of machinery "in stock for next day delivery", my
>credit card was charged and I was emailed 5 days later that my item
>is expected to ship in about 3 months (a date was given). I mainly
>share this because CPO is a major 3rd party seller at Amazon.com.
------------------------------------
Cold day in hell a supplier charges my credit card prior to shipment.
Lew
Bill wrote:
> I ordered a piece of machinery "in stock for next day delivery", my
> credit card was charged and I was emailed 5 days later that my item is
> expected to ship in about 3 months (a date was given). I mainly share
> this because CPO is a major 3rd party seller at Amazon.com.
>
> I was told, they "have trouble keeping their web site up-to-date". This
> is evidently the truth because after a week, the item is still listed as
> in stock at Amazon and on their site. I ordered a digital keyboard on
> line once and had to maintain the same sort of patience.
>
> In any event, be cautious who you order from if you are in a hurry.
> I'm saving a few bucks, and the wait is not a meaningful inconvenience
> in my situation--but it could have been.
>
> Bill
Check with your credit card company. Though not illegal, it's against
Visa's and MasterCard's policies for a vendor to apply charges before an
item ships.
--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
[email protected]
Bill wrote:
>
> I'll write them a note and see what happens. I like the idea of
> paying later, because I get a set amount of warranty coverage via my
> credit card. I got a pretty good price and I don't want to lose
> that.
>
> Thanks (you and Lew),
> Bill
----------------------------------
There's a sucker born every minute.
Lew
"Swingman" wrote:
> Don't look now C-Less, but, according to the Fair Credit Billing
> Act, it is illegal to not ship within the advertised time period;
> AND it is also a violation of the merchants agreement with VISA and
> MasterCard to bill their cards prior to shipping.
--------------------------------
That's also how you prevent a merchant playing the "float".
If allowed, it becomes a free "Cash Advance" for the merchant, which
is another reason the bank cards don't like it.
$50 per customer, 500 customers puts you in the $25K ball park in a
hurry.
Lew
.
"Swingman" wrote:
> I know how much you just love debit cards, Lew <g, d, & r> ... but
> just imagine that a gas station can put a hold on $100 on a "pay at
> the pump" debit transaction for up to 3 days ... might be more in
> some locales.
>
> College kids always seem to find this out the hard way, but the
> banks love the overdraft fees ... :(
-------------------------------------
Having spent several years working with ethnic contractors and
distributors was good enough to qualify as a "street business PhD".
You don't learn that kind of stuff in a classroom.
Could tell you "Bernie" stories for hours involving Bernie, an
electrical
contractor, who
carried the tattoo on his arm and the only one of his family to make
it out of Auschwitz alive.
"Bill" wrote:
> The way I was brought up, you're supposed to be willing to walk a
> mile for a C-note if you're fortunate enough to have the
> opportunity. When I was 12, I delivered newspapers at 5:00 in the
> morning for 3 or 4 cents a piece--even in electrical storms and deep
> snow! And, I didn't whine about it! You kids...think this is the
> land of milk and honey... :)
--------------------------------
Relevance?
Lew
"Bill" wrote:
> Your earlier post suggested I was "getting screwed", and that may be
> possible depending on your definitions. However, I'm willing to
> hand over $450 to them now in exchange for their promise to deliver
> a DP in 3 months compared to handing over $550 in exchange for a DP
> 3 months from now. You evidently would be willing to pay the extra
> $100 (25% here) in exchange for doing business on your terms. I have
> a more difficult time justifying that luxury for myself while
> interest rates are near 0%. The CC-bank said they would still be
> behind me (if I should need them) 3 months from now.
------------------------------
There is a guy who has some swamp land over in Arizona who has a deal
for you.
Lew
Bill wrote:
> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>
>> "Bill" wrote:
>>
>>> Your earlier post suggested I was "getting screwed", and that may be
>>> possible depending on your definitions. However, I'm willing to
>>> hand over $450 to them now in exchange for their promise to deliver
>>> a DP in 3 months compared to handing over $550 in exchange for a DP
>>> 3 months from now. You evidently would be willing to pay the extra
>>> $100 (25% here) in exchange for doing business on your terms. I have
>>> a more difficult time justifying that luxury for myself while
>>> interest rates are near 0%. The CC-bank said they would still be
>>> behind me (if I should need them) 3 months from now.
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> There is a guy who has some swamp land over in Arizona who has a deal
>> for you.
>>
>> Lew
>
>
> If this was just an e-bay seller, I wouldn't make the same concessions.
> I have a little gamble in me, and think I'm going to win $100. You gave
> up gambling since your pool-shooting days? There was a country singer,
> George Strait maybe, who used to since about "ocean front property in
> Ar-iz-on-a". I'm holding out for that--less crocs! : )
>
> Bill
I looked up CPOworkshop.com at "WhoIs". The domain is registered to
"Domains by Proxy, Inc." Looking at their web site the first thing
stated is, "Your identity is nobody's business but ours".
https://www.domainsbyproxy.com/Default.aspx
I'd be reluctant to do business with someone who hides who they are.
--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
[email protected]
On 11/11/2010 5:16 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 07:28:24 -0600, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>> This is an apparent "business practice" that they indulge in when it is
>> convenient to them and I personally will not allow them to indulge by
>> tying up my $$/credit, period.
>
> I think you're overreacting to the hilt here, Swingy. Purchases tie
> up only the amount of purchase, and you expected to do that, anyway.
> What's the fuss?
Don't look now C-Less, but, according to the Fair Credit Billing Act, it
is illegal to not ship within the advertised time period; AND it is also
a violation of the merchants agreement with VISA and MasterCard to bill
their cards prior to shipping.
That's why Visa took my side ... I don't write the rules, Bubba, but
only a dummy doesn't learn them to preclude being taken advantage of.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 17:29:11 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 11/11/2010 5:16 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 07:28:24 -0600, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>> This is an apparent "business practice" that they indulge in when it is
>>> convenient to them and I personally will not allow them to indulge by
>>> tying up my $$/credit, period.
>>
>> I think you're overreacting to the hilt here, Swingy. Purchases tie
>> up only the amount of purchase, and you expected to do that, anyway.
>> What's the fuss?
>
>Don't look now C-Less, but, according to the Fair Credit Billing Act, it
>is illegal to not ship within the advertised time period; AND it is also
>a violation of the merchants agreement with VISA and MasterCard to bill
>their cards prior to shipping.
I must have missed the original post and didn't realize that they had
not shipped within the advertised time period.
>That's why Visa took my side ... I don't write the rules, Bubba, but
>only a dummy doesn't learn them to preclude being taken advantage of.
I've never been taken advantage of in that regard. <shrug>
--
To the well-organized mind, death is but the next great adventure.
-- J. K. Rowling
Bill wrote:
> I ordered a piece of machinery "in stock for next day delivery", my
> credit card was charged and I was emailed 5 days later that my item is
> expected to ship in about 3 months (a date was given). I mainly share
> this because CPO is a major 3rd party seller at Amazon.com.
>
In some - if not many states, it is illegal to charge the credit card before
the product ships. I admit that I do not understand all of the nuances of
what "ships" means. I've certainly had my card charged and been advised
that shipping would occur within 2 days, so that would imply there is more
to this definition than meets the eye. That said - 3 months looks at least
a little odd on the surface. It might be worth investigating the laws in
your state.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Nov 10, 8:58=A0pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Bill" wrote:
> >I ordered a piece of machinery "in stock for next day delivery", my
> >credit card was charged and I was emailed 5 days later that my item
> >is expected to ship in about 3 months (a date was given). I mainly
> >share this because CPO is a major 3rd party seller at Amazon.com.
>
> ------------------------------------
> Cold day in hell a supplier charges my credit card prior to shipment.
>
> Lew
I agree.
Further it isn't very ethical to charge before the item ships
especially since there is a three month wait. It is ethical to charge
a deposit if it is a special order item.
You might want to reconsider the "good price" if they are already
playing games. The story on "website troubles" along with the above
makes it suspect.
Allen
On 11/11/2010 5:53 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "Swingman" wrote:
>
>> Don't look now C-Less, but, according to the Fair Credit Billing
>> Act, it is illegal to not ship within the advertised time period;
>> AND it is also a violation of the merchants agreement with VISA and
>> MasterCard to bill their cards prior to shipping.
> --------------------------------
> That's also how you prevent a merchant playing the "float".
>
> If allowed, it becomes a free "Cash Advance" for the merchant, which
> is another reason the bank cards don't like it.
>
> $50 per customer, 500 customers puts you in the $25K ball park in a
> hurry.
I know how much you just love debit cards, Lew <g, d, & r> ... but just
imagine that a gas station can put a hold on $100 on a "pay at the pump"
debit transaction for up to 3 days ... might be more in some locales.
College kids always seem to find this out the hard way, but the banks
love the overdraft fees ... :(
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 07:28:24 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 11/10/2010 7:27 PM, Bill wrote:
>> I ordered a piece of machinery "in stock for next day delivery", my
>> credit card was charged and I was emailed 5 days later that my item is
>> expected to ship in about 3 months (a date was given). I mainly share
>> this because CPO is a major 3rd party seller at Amazon.com.
>>
>> I was told, they "have trouble keeping their web site up-to-date". This
>> is evidently the truth because after a week, the item is still listed as
>> in stock at Amazon and on their site. I ordered a digital keyboard on
>> line once and had to maintain the same sort of patience.
>>
>> In any event, be cautious who you order from if you are in a hurry.
>> I'm saving a few bucks, and the wait is not a meaningful inconvenience
>> in my situation--but it could have been.
>
>CPO did the _exact_ same thing to me when I ordered a DeWalt right angle
>guide that fits both their plunge saw's guide rails and the Festool
>guide rails.
>
>An "in-stock" item on their website, put on backorder and my card
>charged in the interim.
>
>Raised hell with both CPO (I refused to cancel the order and let them
>off the hook) and my credit card company and ended up getting the part
>much sooner than I would have according to their original email ...
>coincidental? I think not.
Interesting. Several years ago, I made a large order to Griz on a
Friday and they gave me a 6 week delivery date. I sighed and agreed.
The freight company called the following Monday morning and delivered
that afternoon. I didn't hold 3-day delivery against Griz. ;)
>This is an apparent "business practice" that they indulge in when it is
>convenient to them and I personally will not allow them to indulge by
>tying up my $$/credit, period.
I think you're overreacting to the hilt here, Swingy. Purchases tie
up only the amount of purchase, and you expected to do that, anyway.
What's the fuss?
>Don't take this lying down, Bill ... you can most likely both get the
>good price, and not have your card charged prior to shipment if you
>firmly refuse to allow them to get away with it. Your CC company needs
>to get involved for starters. You may even get the item sooner.
I don't see what the big deal is. I want the part, I order it, I
expect to pay for it then, whether or not it's backordered. That's the
standard for special orders, and I believe always has been. Why should
a regular order/backorder be different?
But if I were to cancel my order which had not already been shipped,
I'd expect them to return those funds to my account THAT DAY, too.
--
Education is when you read the fine print.
Experience is what you get if you don't.
-- Pete Seeger
On 11/13/2010 7:49 PM, Robert Bonomi wrote:
> In article<[email protected]>,
> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 11/11/2010 5:53 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
>>> "Swingman" wrote:
>>>
>>>> Don't look now C-Less, but, according to the Fair Credit Billing
>>>> Act, it is illegal to not ship within the advertised time period;
>>>> AND it is also a violation of the merchants agreement with VISA and
>>>> MasterCard to bill their cards prior to shipping.
>>> --------------------------------
>>> That's also how you prevent a merchant playing the "float".
>>>
>>> If allowed, it becomes a free "Cash Advance" for the merchant, which
>>> is another reason the bank cards don't like it.
>>>
>>> $50 per customer, 500 customers puts you in the $25K ball park in a
>>> hurry.
>>
>> I know how much you just love debit cards, Lew<g, d,& r> ... but just
>> imagine that a gas station can put a hold on $100 on a "pay at the pump"
>> debit transaction for up to 3 days ... might be more in some locales.
>
> Such a 'hold' does _not_ get the gas station any money, nor is the money
> taken out of your account.
The point is, Robert, is that the money is not available to you for
subsequent purchases.
With most banks they will either be denied if the hold exceeds the
amount remaining in the account after the gas purchase, or allowed to go
through with an overdraft fee attached.
College students get bit by this constantly due to mainly having low
balances in their accounts.
> In fact, if the money is sitting in an interest-beaing account you are
> _still_ earning the interest on it.
Has nothing to do with the specific issue under discussion.
> A 'hold' is simply a 'reservation' for a claim of up to that amount.
> If the merchant is 'doing things right' the hold -should- come off when
> the 'actual charges' are run.
Absolutely NOT true in the scenario CLEARLY stated above: ""Pay at the
Pump" with a debit card", and these holds can last for 72 hours, with
the funds being held not available.
> If not, there is basis for a small-claims action against the merchant
> for any actual out-of-pocket losses (e.g. the overdraft fees0 suffered
> as a result of the merchant's actions.
You miss the point completely ... say you have $75 in the account and
"pay at the pump" for $20 worth of gas. You should now have $55 for
another debit card purchase, right?
Wrong! ... No part of that $55 is available to you to use for future
purchases until the "hold" is lifted, in some cases up to 72 hours later:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/09/16/eveningnews/consumer/main855673.shtml
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IphXZf_ib18
The way I had my college age daughter try to get around this was to go
in the convenience store and pay for a specific dollar amount of gas
using her debit card pin. Even this was not always successful at some
Major oil company gas stations, namely Chevron, right across the street
from the major campus entrance.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)
In article <[email protected]>,
Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 11/11/2010 5:53 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> "Swingman" wrote:
>>
>>> Don't look now C-Less, but, according to the Fair Credit Billing
>>> Act, it is illegal to not ship within the advertised time period;
>>> AND it is also a violation of the merchants agreement with VISA and
>>> MasterCard to bill their cards prior to shipping.
>> --------------------------------
>> That's also how you prevent a merchant playing the "float".
>>
>> If allowed, it becomes a free "Cash Advance" for the merchant, which
>> is another reason the bank cards don't like it.
>>
>> $50 per customer, 500 customers puts you in the $25K ball park in a
>> hurry.
>
>I know how much you just love debit cards, Lew <g, d, & r> ... but just
>imagine that a gas station can put a hold on $100 on a "pay at the pump"
>debit transaction for up to 3 days ... might be more in some locales.
Such a 'hold' does _not_ get the gas station any money, nor is the money
taken out of your account.
In fact, if the money is sitting in an interest-beaing account you are
_still_ earning the interest on it.
A 'hold' is simply a 'reservation' for a claim of up to that amount.
If the merchant is 'doing things right' the hold -should- come off when
the 'actual charges' are run.
If not, there is basis for a small-claims action against the merchant
for any actual out-of-pocket losses (e.g. the overdraft fees0 suffered
as a result of the merchant's actions.
Nova wrote:
> Bill wrote:
>> I ordered a piece of machinery "in stock for next day delivery", my
>> credit card was charged and I was emailed 5 days later that my item is
>> expected to ship in about 3 months (a date was given). I mainly share
>> this because CPO is a major 3rd party seller at Amazon.com.
>>
>> I was told, they "have trouble keeping their web site up-to-date".
>> This is evidently the truth because after a week, the item is still
>> listed as in stock at Amazon and on their site. I ordered a digital
>> keyboard on line once and had to maintain the same sort of patience.
>>
>> In any event, be cautious who you order from if you are in a hurry.
>> I'm saving a few bucks, and the wait is not a meaningful inconvenience
>> in my situation--but it could have been.
>>
>> Bill
>
> Check with your credit card company. Though not illegal, it's against
> Visa's and MasterCard's policies for a vendor to apply charges before an
> item ships.
>
I'll write them a note and see what happens. I like the idea of paying
later, because I get a set amount of warranty coverage via my credit
card. I got a pretty good price and I don't want to lose that.
Thanks (you and Lew),
Bill
Not sure about legality of advance charging a credit card by such a long
period of time, but I believe the Fair Credit Billing Act does make it
illegal to not ship within the advertised time. I would definitely ask the
vendor to cancel or credit back the charges until the item is actually
available. If they don't, your credit card company certainly will after
you explain to them.
It is to the vendor's advantage to issue the credit themselve's as I
understand it; the cc company charges a fee to the vendor when they do
a chargeback to the vendor's account.
--
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation
with the average voter. (Winston Churchill)
Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar. org
On 11/11/2010 8:28 AM, Swingman wrote:
> On 11/10/2010 7:27 PM, Bill wrote:
>> I ordered a piece of machinery "in stock for next day delivery", my
>> credit card was charged and I was emailed 5 days later that my item is
>> expected to ship in about 3 months (a date was given). I mainly share
>> this because CPO is a major 3rd party seller at Amazon.com.
>>
>> I was told, they "have trouble keeping their web site up-to-date". This
>> is evidently the truth because after a week, the item is still listed as
>> in stock at Amazon and on their site. I ordered a digital keyboard on
>> line once and had to maintain the same sort of patience.
>>
>> In any event, be cautious who you order from if you are in a hurry.
>> I'm saving a few bucks, and the wait is not a meaningful inconvenience
>> in my situation--but it could have been.
>
> CPO did the _exact_ same thing to me when I ordered a DeWalt right angle
> guide that fits both their plunge saw's guide rails and the Festool
> guide rails.
>
> An "in-stock" item on their website, put on backorder and my card
> charged in the interim.
>
> Raised hell with both CPO (I refused to cancel the order and let them
> off the hook) and my credit card company and ended up getting the part
> much sooner than I would have according to their original email ...
> coincidental? I think not.
>
> This is an apparent "business practice" that they indulge in when it is
> convenient to them and I personally will not allow them to indulge by
> tying up my $$/credit, period.
>
> Don't take this lying down, Bill ... you can most likely both get the
> good price, and not have your card charged prior to shipment if you
> firmly refuse to allow them to get away with it. Your CC company needs
> to get involved for starters. You may even get the item sooner.
>
Thank you for sharing story and insight. You described my goal, get the
good price and not have my credit card charged until my order is
shipped. I emailed them last night. My next step is the credit card
company since you suggested it.
At least both of us have described our experiences so far for the sake
of others who may be paying attention.
Thanks everyone for the wake-up call. I will share the outcome.
Bill
On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 07:28:24 -0600, Swingman wrote:
> This is an apparent "business practice" that they indulge in when it is
> convenient to them and I personally will not allow them to indulge by
> tying up my $$/credit, period.
>
> Don't take this lying down, Bill ... you can most likely both get the
> good price, and not have your card charged prior to shipment if you
> firmly refuse to allow them to get away with it. Your CC company needs
> to get involved for starters. You may even get the item sooner.
Also, file a complaint with the BBB. Even if they are not a member,the
BBB will note the complaint and someone inquiring in the future will
learn of your bad experience.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
On 11/11/2010 12:31 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 07:28:24 -0600, Swingman wrote:
>
>> This is an apparent "business practice" that they indulge in when it is
>> convenient to them and I personally will not allow them to indulge by
>> tying up my $$/credit, period.
>>
>> Don't take this lying down, Bill ... you can most likely both get the
>> good price, and not have your card charged prior to shipment if you
>> firmly refuse to allow them to get away with it. Your CC company needs
>> to get involved for starters. You may even get the item sooner.
>
> Also, file a complaint with the BBB. Even if they are not a member,the
> BBB will note the complaint and someone inquiring in the future will
> learn of your bad experience.
I'll give them a chance to take "the high road" from here. If they
choose not to, then I'll try to persuade them. No reply yet from the
note I sent last night.
Bill
Larry W wrote:
> Not sure about legality of advance charging a credit card by such a long
> period of time, but I believe the Fair Credit Billing Act does make it
> illegal to not ship within the advertised time.
I'm not sure about the Fair Credit Billing Act. My credit card company
did not mention it. And he said that it was not for them, the bank, to
dictate how a merchant does business. Unless I'm willing to file a
"dispute", for non-delivery for instance, there's nothing they can do if
I still want the item I ordered. He pointed out that I'm free to notify
the BBB, etc. FWIW, I (hoping to be) getting an item that normally goes
for $550-600 online for $450. If I cancelled my order, I'd probably end
up paying a higher price, so I'll wait.
Bill
> Larry W wrote:
>> Not sure about legality of advance charging a credit card by such a long
>> period of time, but I believe the Fair Credit Billing Act does make it
>> illegal to not ship within the advertised time.
Here's a link to the Fair Credit Billing Act. I am not a lawyer, but, in
spite of its length, it does NOT contain the word "ship".
http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcb/fcb.pdf
Bill
Bill wrote:
>
>> Larry W wrote:
>>> Not sure about legality of advance charging a credit card by such a long
>>> period of time, but I believe the Fair Credit Billing Act does make it
>>> illegal to not ship within the advertised time.
>
> Here's a link to the Fair Credit Billing Act. I am not a lawyer, but, in
> spite of its length, it does NOT contain the word "ship".
>
Of course, meant to say "despite" its length.
> http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcb/fcb.pdf
>
> Bill
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Bill" wrote:
>
>>I ordered a piece of machinery "in stock for next day delivery", my credit
>>card was charged and I was emailed 5 days later that my item is expected
>>to ship in about 3 months (a date was given). I mainly share this because
>>CPO is a major 3rd party seller at Amazon.com.
> ------------------------------------
> Cold day in hell a supplier charges my credit card prior to shipment.
>
> Lew
>
>
AMEN! Bill needs to have a word with the CC company.
--
If your name is No, I voted for you - more than once ...
"Larry Jaques" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 07:28:24 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
snip
>
> I don't see what the big deal is. I want the part, I order it, I
> expect to pay for it then, whether or not it's backordered. That's the
> standard for special orders, and I believe always has been. Why should
> a regular order/backorder be different?
>
> But if I were to cancel my order which had not already been shipped,
> I'd expect them to return those funds to my account THAT DAY, too.
I had the opposite experience just this week. Tried to order a book from a
company in Germany (only place I could find it) but couldn't find a place to
pay after entering my name and address and gave up. Imagine my surprise when
the book showed up in the mail! They included instructions on how to pay
them. If I need any of their other products, they will get the order!
--
If your name is No, I voted for you - more than once ...
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "Bill" wrote:
>> ..., I (hoping to be) getting an item that normally goes for
>> $550-600 online for $450. If I cancelled my order, I'd probably end
>> up paying a higher price, so I'll wait.
> --------------------------------
> "Madam, we know what you are, we are simply negotiating price".
>
> Lew
>
>
Yep. Amazon.com's wait time is 7 or 8 weeks and their price is $100
higher. It's not like the world is full of suppliers for the consumer
market... I might venture to guess that if you order through Rockler or
Woodcraft, where they says "ships from the manufacturer" that you stand
in the same line and end up getting your order from the same company.
Bill
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "Bill" wrote:
>> ..., I (hoping to be) getting an item that normally goes for
>> $550-600 online for $450. If I cancelled my order, I'd probably end
>> up paying a higher price, so I'll wait.
> --------------------------------
> "Madam, we know what you are, we are simply negotiating price".
>
> Lew
>
The way I was brought up, you're supposed to be willing to walk a mile
for a C-note if you're fortunate enough to have the opportunity. When I
was 12, I delivered newspapers at 5:00 in the morning for 3 or 4 cents a
piece--even in electrical storms and deep snow! And, I didn't whine
about it! You kids...think this is the land of milk and honey... :)
Bill
On 11/12/2010 2:00 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "Bill" wrote:
>
>> The way I was brought up, you're supposed to be willing to walk a
>> mile for a C-note if you're fortunate enough to have the
>> opportunity. When I was 12, I delivered newspapers at 5:00 in the
>> morning for 3 or 4 cents a piece--even in electrical storms and deep
>> snow! And, I didn't whine about it! You kids...think this is the
>> land of milk and honey... :)
> --------------------------------
> Relevance?
>
> Lew
>
Your earlier post suggested I was "getting screwed", and that may be
possible depending on your definitions. However, I'm willing to hand
over $450 to them now in exchange for their promise to deliver a DP in 3
months compared to handing over $550 in exchange for a DP 3 months from
now. You evidently would be willing to pay the extra $100 (25% here) in
exchange for doing business on your terms. I have a more difficult time
justifying that luxury for myself while interest rates are near 0%. The
CC-bank said they would still be behind me (if I should need them) 3
months from now.
Bill
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "Bill" wrote:
>
>> Your earlier post suggested I was "getting screwed", and that may be
>> possible depending on your definitions. However, I'm willing to
>> hand over $450 to them now in exchange for their promise to deliver
>> a DP in 3 months compared to handing over $550 in exchange for a DP
>> 3 months from now. You evidently would be willing to pay the extra
>> $100 (25% here) in exchange for doing business on your terms. I have
>> a more difficult time justifying that luxury for myself while
>> interest rates are near 0%. The CC-bank said they would still be
>> behind me (if I should need them) 3 months from now.
> ------------------------------
> There is a guy who has some swamp land over in Arizona who has a deal
> for you.
>
> Lew
If this was just an e-bay seller, I wouldn't make the same concessions.
I have a little gamble in me, and think I'm going to win $100. You gave
up gambling since your pool-shooting days? There was a country singer,
George Strait maybe, who used to since about "ocean front property in
Ar-iz-on-a". I'm holding out for that--less crocs! : )
Bill
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> There is a guy who has some swamp land over in Arizona who has a deal
> for you.
>
> Lew
>
It's just too coincidental that I "found my drill" on my dad's birthday
(don't go singing about Blueberry Hill"...). Like I've said at the crap
tables, sometimes ya gotta believe! :)
Just sayin',
Bill
(and don't going singing any of Kenny Rogers' song!).
Swingman wrote:
> An "in-stock" item on their website, put on backorder and my card
> charged in the interim.
>
> Raised hell with both CPO (I refused to cancel the order and let them
> off the hook) and my credit card company and ended up getting the part
> much sooner than I would have according to their original email ...
> coincidental? I think not.
>
> This is an apparent "business practice" that they indulge in when it is
> convenient to them and I personally will not allow them to indulge by
> tying up my $$/credit, period.
Swingman, Inspired by your comments, I just sent an email message to the
corporate level (Delta/Porter-Cable) regarding their "Authorized Delta
Online Retailer". One might infer CPO is violating their policy of
"7-day delivery for in stock merchandise". Perhaps that will motivate
them to ship my DP a little faster..
Bill
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> CPO did the _exact_ same thing to me when I ordered a DeWalt right angle
> guide that fits both their plunge saw's guide rails and the Festool guide
> rails.
Was this DeWalt angle guide the equivalent to the Festool 491588 combination
angle unit Karl? If so, how well does it work with the Festool guide rails?
I've been considering the Festool unit, but wouldn't mind saving a few
sheckles by substituting the DeWalt guide as long as it works to specs.
On 11/11/2010 7:43 AM, Upscale wrote:
> "Swingman"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>> CPO did the _exact_ same thing to me when I ordered a DeWalt right angle
>> guide that fits both their plunge saw's guide rails and the Festool guide
>> rails.
>
> Was this DeWalt angle guide the equivalent to the Festool 491588 combination
> angle unit Karl? If so, how well does it work with the Festool guide rails?
> I've been considering the Festool unit, but wouldn't mind saving a few
> sheckles by substituting the DeWalt guide as long as it works to specs.
No, the DeWalt I purchased was the 90 degree guide and is not adjustable:
http://www.amazon.com/DeWALT-DWS5027-DEWALT-TrackSaw-T-Square/dp/B001J34IQ4
I do have the Festool 491588 also.
For quick 90 degree cuts the DeWalt is much easier/quicker to handle,
but I did have to file off just a scooch of the shoulder (at the radius
bend) on a Festool clamp in order to use the clamp with it ... just a
few seconds with a bastard file was all it took, NBD).
Mine is accurate, while some report having a problem with the accuracy.
If you have a need for 90 degree cuts quite often, my advice would be to
not bother with the Festool adjustable angle guide at all and spring for
the DeWalt.
That said, there are plenty of ways to skin either cat and I would not
consider either component essential _unless_ you are batch cutting
angled parts, then the Festool adjustable would be the way to go.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)