Originally Posted by Maverick0
I don't think that's quite fair. I know what you're saying, but unless it's explicitly detailed in a formal agreement between the buyer and the seller that they may not actually get what they want, then they should be entitled to some sort of compensation.
If it's such a crapshoot, why didn't these people simply make the order themselves instead of through A&A? Because through a retailer that has the right permits, it's supposed to be a sure fire thing, however delays are to be expected. Somehow, it seems that these people were led to believe that going through A&A was a sure deal because he is supposed to be legally allowed to import. At least, that's what I understand from all this, and I have to say, I personally thought Mark could bring stuff in the country without problems, save for inspection delays. If it was not guaranteed that the goods paid for would be delivered, that should have been made very clear.
Here should be the deal! IF ITS SUCH A GAMBLE then why doesn't Mark give back the PROFIT from the guns? If you send him $700 for an AEG, mark buys that AEG from the USA for $200, but it gets confiscated, shouldn't mark give the $500 profit back?