3 ms·

Yeah, that's roughly where I was coming from in what I said re: bad-faith termination in my other comment. Without chasing your link, I assume it's the one whe

Yeah, that's roughly where I was coming from in what I said re: bad-faith termination in my other comment. Without chasing your link, I assume it's the one where anything backordered (i.e. paid for but not shipped, which would technically be the case here) must get status updates every 30 days and be fully cancellable. I couldn't remember if that applied to internet sales too, or just the old mail order sales laws it came from. If it is that law, I agree it'd be potentially a violation of that, hence thinking probably technically fraud to block that option by claiming fulfillment.

torstenvl 4y ago
Yeah, that's the rule. Some nuance to it: must be fully cancel-able for shipments that cannot be shipped in (a) the timeframe provided in solicitation; (b) 30 days if none; or (c) a revised shipping date. It's unclear whether the claim on the phone that it had already shipped is a revised shipping date. If so, then they obviously cannot meet it, which then would require them to notify the customer and allow them to cancel. It's always odd when a statute or regulation makes unstated assumptions about the way a problem plays out, because it makes the applicability questionable.