- Messages
- 1,432
- Reactions
- 3,251
To be clear this is NOT meant to brand bash nor an invitation to brand bash. This is a pure objective clinical view of what Taurus promised in their 2017 class action settlement terms, versus what was delivered. Do you think they lived up to their obligations? From their legal settlement website there were express and implied promises for performance. This included:
Taurus Class Action
So for those of you impacted, do you feel?:
* That there was "no cost to you."?
* Comparable pistols were offered, as promised?
"Comparable" is defined as like value, like qualities, etc.
* An effort was made to develop a fix or to fix or repair your pistol?
* That Taurus absorbed the expenses, or was there a cost to you?
* Your pistol was inspected and returned if not defective?
* Was it fair to make you elect a cash option 1/2 value of your pistol, without knowing even how much that might be?
* Were "turn around" times done in a reasonable fashion?
* Given many vague terms, (i.e. "if..." and "or" and "certain calibers") do you think Taurus delivered in good faith?
My reason for asking is NOT brand bashing but instead to sort out whether others, like me, believe Taurus may have induced people to opt into the class action resolution through deceptive, misleading, or vague terms and acted in bad faith by not delivering on key settlement terms. Please do not brand bash, but instead share your objective opinions on these issues.
What is your opinion?
Taurus Class Action
"Enhanced Warranty Benefit. … you can return your Class Pistol for repair or replacement, at no cost to you. Taurus will provide a free, transferable lifetime Enhanced Warranty benefit. Under this benefit, you may ship your Class Pistol to Taurus at Taurus's expense. Taurus will inspect the pistol and repair or replace it, with no requirement that you prove the pistol is defective. Taurus will ship the repaired or replaced pistol back to you at Taurus's expense. You should anticipate a minimum three week turn‐around if returning a Class Pistol for it to be repaired or replaced. No repair for the alleged safety defects is currently available, so pistols returned under this option will be replaced with a comparable Taurus G2 (or similar) model pistol at this time. If Taurus develops a repair, it can repair rather than replace Class Pistols.
… Replacement pistols will be shipped directly to the Federal Firearms Licensed dealer …The dealer may require you to complete standard background check forms before transferring the replacement pistol to you. You may seek reimbursement from Taurus for fees associated with the transfer process. Certain calibers of the Class Pistol models are not available in Taurus G2 model pistols.
Cash Payments. You Can Return your Class Pistol to Taurus and receive a cash payment of up to $200….You will not know the cash payment amount until after the deadline."
So for those of you impacted, do you feel?:
* That there was "no cost to you."?
* Comparable pistols were offered, as promised?
"Comparable" is defined as like value, like qualities, etc.
* An effort was made to develop a fix or to fix or repair your pistol?
* That Taurus absorbed the expenses, or was there a cost to you?
* Your pistol was inspected and returned if not defective?
* Was it fair to make you elect a cash option 1/2 value of your pistol, without knowing even how much that might be?
* Were "turn around" times done in a reasonable fashion?
* Given many vague terms, (i.e. "if..." and "or" and "certain calibers") do you think Taurus delivered in good faith?
My reason for asking is NOT brand bashing but instead to sort out whether others, like me, believe Taurus may have induced people to opt into the class action resolution through deceptive, misleading, or vague terms and acted in bad faith by not delivering on key settlement terms. Please do not brand bash, but instead share your objective opinions on these issues.
What is your opinion?
