3 ms·
> It's not like the seller couldn't have fulfilled it; they would have just taken a loss to do so. Contract law exists to enforce contracts that one party does
by bdowling 6y ago
> It's not like the seller couldn't have fulfilled it; they would have just taken a loss to do so.
Contract law exists to enforce contracts that one party doesn't want to complete because they regret entering into the deal once they have more information, or the costs change, etc.
You could try to sue the vendor in small claims court to recover your damages, including the costs of the suit. The vendor is counting on you and other parties not actually doing that.
- Nextgrid 6y agoThe problem is that the vendor is technically Amazon; they are the one who provide the technical, financial and logistical services as well as profit from it (if the scam went in the seller's favor). The seller itself is likely abroad. We have a regulatory problem here where you think you deal with a local company abiding by local laws, you get charged by a local company that's supposed to be abiding by local laws (Amazon charges customers and they pays out the sellers later), but when things go wrong they can suddenly pull the "we are a platform" get-out-of-jail-free card. This should not be possible.