Suing topps!!!!!

[maxe0213]

hes still a customer, just like you

He is a customer who if stops buying the product would hurt topps because of the quantity he buys/busts.

He is not just a customer like me. I don't open Topps products because I think Topps is one of the worst corporations. They lose my business so what. They lose his it will affect their bottom line.

Many people don't like Chapmans but what he is doing is refreshing for this hobby. Seeing someone stand up to topps is nice.

Feel free to disagree but I'd rather have someone challenge topps than everyone just sit here and twiddle your thumbs. He's doing a lot more than the majority of the people in this thread are thats for sure.

 

[A_Pharis]

Don't redemptions have wording on the back that say they are subject to repalcement at the discretion of Topps? If so, I'd guess that's the leg to stand on since they would be the determining factor of value.

 

[A_Pharis]

He is a customer who if stops buying the product would hurt topps because of the quantity he buys/busts.

He is not just a customer like me. I don't open Topps products because I think Topps is one of the worst corporations. They lose my business so what. They lose his it will affect their bottom line.

Many people don't like Chapmans but what he is doing is refreshing for this hobby. Seeing someone stand up to topps is nice.

Feel free to disagree but I'd rather have someone challenge topps than everyone just sit here and twiddle your thumbs. He's doing a lot more than the majority of the people in this thread are thats for sure.

If Chapman didn't buy - they'd still sell full allotment. To think any one buyer is the life line of a company is laughable.

 

[A_Pharis]

Also, just so my opinion is clear - I am a firm believer of not buying something that doesn't make me happy. People act as though because Topps is the biggest game in town that you are being FORCED to buy their product.

I see "big buyers" threaten to stop buying DAILY only to tweet the next day that they "can't wait for [their] 30+ cases of Bowman".
I've never seen people get hit in the face so much... go back.. and then BLAME the company for going back.

Oy.

 

[maxe0213]

If Chapman didn't buy - they'd still sell full allotment. To think any one buyer is the life line of a company is laughable.

Did i say that he is the life line of the company? There ya go putting words in my mouth. Seems like a reoccurring thing from you.

I said that "He is a customer who if stops buying the product would hurt topps because of the quantity he buys/busts."

Which is pretty self explanatory. He would put a dent in their bottom line (albeit a very very tiny dent maybe something like .05 percent).

I don't care if you agree with me. But he is doing more than anyone of you (save Leaf/BG) are doing to try and help fix this hobby.

 

[RStadlerASU22]

Absolutely great he is challenging the current system , and I am sure Topps would prefer not to have to deal with it. However I am not sure there is much of a tide turner outcome in this case. As A_Pharis just stated, the wording on the redemptions will hold pretty strong in court IMO. If they (Topps) can show they offered a "fair" replacement then I am not sure NC will get the cash he wants at this point. Again, I'm all for a different system to redemptions and replacements, and these smaller cases would be ones that help lay the groundwork if successful , but I am not sure that his "I won't accept product in return" is beneficial to his case.

Ryan

 

[A_Pharis]

Did i say that he is the life line of the company? There ya go putting words in my mouth. Seems like a reoccurring thing from you.

I have no idea what you are referring to, but this isn't the thread for it. However, I am extremely interested in hearing about this and would like to discuss it with you. Drop me a PM with an explanation of the bolded, and I'll address it with you - along with some other things.

 

[sportscardtheory]

Don't redemptions have wording on the back that say they are subject to repalcement at the discretion of Topps? If so, I'd guess that's the leg to stand on since they would be the determining factor of value.

Would you pay the same amount for a pack, box or case knowing that the best cards you can pull will never make it to you, as a pack, box or case of the same product, but knowing you WILL receive any redemptions that are pulled?

 

[sportscardtheory]

he is going to small claims court which means nothing at all to you or the card collecting world. Say he does win, he will get the 1,000 he wants, and nothing comes of it. Its not like it would open the flood gates to lawsuits after setting a precedent, it wont. Its small claims which really means nothing.

BTW ignore the fact topps offered him a case worth 1,000 and he is making a scene over nothing trying to rally the troops for HIS cause.He was offered a fair deal and just wants to make a stink. I must say he is quite the drama queen.

Oh give me a break. Seriously? Attacking someone's character for fighting for what they paid for? That's a new low.

 

[mudflap02]

If he took the case, how great would it be if there was a high end redemption inside.

 

[A_Pharis]

Would you pay the same amount for a pack, box or case knowing that the best cards you can pull will never make it to you, as a pack, box or case of the same product, but knowing you WILL receive any redemptions that are pulled?

Regardless of the outcome - depending on the wording on those redemptions - buying a product with the disclaimer that there may be redemptions and that the redemptions may be replaced is something that is taken as an acceptance.
I don't like redemptions. I don't like replacements. That said, it's the way the company has been allowed to run, and I don't think much will come of this.

 

[maxe0213]

Would you pay the same amount for a pack, box or case knowing that the best cards you can pull will never make it to you, as a pack, box or case of the same product, but knowing you WILL receive any redemptions that are pulled?

Oh give me a break. Seriously? Attacking someone's character for fighting for what they bought? That's a new low.

Couldn't agree more with what your saying.

 

[Mighty Bombjack]

Good thing were all tickled about their "exclusive"

I haven't seen anyone here "tickled" by it. It is pretty much universally acknowledged as a bad thing by members of this and other message boards.

 

[sportscardtheory]

That said, it's the way the company has been allowed to run, and I don't think much will come of this.

You keep saying this as if this is the only "case" that anyone is putting their faith in to make Topps change. You are failing to understand that this is the way things change, if another person sees that it's possible to fight and win against a bait and switch, they may do it. Then another. Then another. Then Topps has 100 of these cases on their hands and it becomes a huge headache for them. It's not about 'one guy who won't make a difference'.

 

[sportscardtheory]

I haven't seen anyone here "tickled" by it. It is pretty much universally acknowledged as a bad thing by members of this and other message boards.

There are at least 5 or more posters here who love the Topps exclusive. Probably more. "Universally acknowledged" is an extreme exaggeration.

 

[A_Pharis]

You keep saying this as if this is the only "case" that anyone is putting their faith in to make Topps change. You are failing to understand that this is the way things change, if another person sees that it's possible to fight and win against a bait and switch, they may do it. Then another. Then another. Then Topps has 100 of these cases on their hands and it becomes a huge headache for them. It's not about 'one guy who won't make a difference'.

I don't think much will come of it, because I think Topps will be able to rightfully defend themselves in it... not because there aren't more people who are disgruntled.

 

[Mighty Bombjack]

There are at least 5 or more posters here who love the Topps exclusive. Probably more. "Universally acknowledged" is an extreme exaggeration.

Really? I haven't seen it, but that isn't saying much. Got screen names? Call 'em in here!

 

[sportscardtheory]

I don't think much will come of it, because I think Topps will be able to rightfully defend themselves in it... not because there aren't more people who are disgruntled.

People have won these types of cases against Topps before in small claims court. You just don't hear about it very often because it's rare that anyone even takes them to small claims. They usually just take it up the butt and await the next Topps product. Hopefully this becomes more commonplace so Topps makes some changes.

 

[sportscardtheory]

Really? I haven't seen it, but that isn't saying much. Got screen names? Call 'em in here!

Uhh, that one guy who has all the Topps cards in his sig for one. He supports the Topps exclusive 100%. There are others too.

 

[Mighty Bombjack]

Uhh, that one guy who has all the Topps cards in his sig for one. He supports the Topps exclusive 100%. There are others too.

You know, I don't doubt it, but I would dislike it if anyone who has argued that BG won't be successful in fighting MLB to automatically be seen as supporting MLB's issuance of an exclusive license.