Game not honouring Black Friday order.

nyermen

please let me know if you would like a refund processed

I'm confused why they're asking this question if the point is moot?

Is the alternative to "letting them know you want the refund processed" that you never get your money or the ordered bundle?

[Deleted User]

nyermen wrote: »

I'm confused why they're asking this question if the point is moot?

Is the alternative to "letting them know you want the refund processed" that you never get your money or the ordered bundle?

...or the ordered bundle?

Does nobody read even full posts anymore let alone the thread?

Where does it say that Game will send the bundle out?

The OP just wants the bundle that they paid for and which they claim is still being sold (whether it's the exact same bundle or not is moot unless the OP can confirm either way)

Hermione_Granger

GobShiite wrote: »

That only makes have in breech of contact BUT they're maximum liability/damages even in this case is a full refund.

Incorrect.
In the event of a breach of contract, it is possible for legal action to result in the retailer having to put the consumer in the position they would be had that contract been fulfilled if the legal action was based on loss of bargain.
I realise that it's not really worth the OP pursuing the matter in court and that even if they were to do so it may well not be a winning outcome but that doesn't mean that the possibility of winning isn't there.

davidmcn

GobShiite wrote: »

That only means Game are in breech of contact

Breach of contract. Breeches are what you put on your legs.

Hermione_Granger

GobShiite wrote: »

Nope. Not ever. The goal of every court in any land with any case is to make the complainant WHOLE AGAIN, so unless this complainant can demonstrate additional DAMAGES over and above the money they laid out, then that's all any court in the world will give them.

You really need to read up on common law a bit more before posting.
"loss of bargain" is a legally accepted term that means that:
"damages paid to the aggrieved party in a breach of contract case should be sufficient in amount to put that party in a position it would have been had the breach not occurred."

unholyangel

GobShiite wrote: »

Nope. Not ever. The goal of every court in any land with any case is to make the complainant WHOLE AGAIN, so unless this complainant can demonstrate additional DAMAGES over and above the money they laid out, then that's all any court in the world will give them.

So you're claiming expectation loss doesn't exist, when actually...its the primary basis for awarding damages in a contract breach?

Well you seem to have gotten your name right, but not much else

ChrisK....._3

No it's MUTE, 'moot' is a americanism/mongrelism of the word MUTE, because they can neither spell or talk properly

The_Rainmaker wrote: »

The point is moot.............NOT mute!

George_Michael

ChrisK..... wrote: »

No it's MUTE, 'moot' is a americanism/mongrelism of the word MUTE, because they can neither spell or talk properly

Nope.
the word "moot" was first used long before any Americanisms affected the English language.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/moot
Mute and moot are words with entirely different derivations.

foxtrotoscar_2

ChrisK..... wrote: »

No it's MUTE, 'moot' is a americanism/mongrelism of the word MUTE, because they can neither spell or talk properly

You are wrong...and not for the first time either.

davidmcn

ChrisK..... wrote: »

'moot' is a americanism/mongrelism of the word MUTE

No, it isn't.

https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/current-students/mooting-oxford/mooting-what-it-and-why-take-part